Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

India

Mr. Marquand: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the total of British economic aid to India in the last year for which figures are available; and how much this figure represents per head of the Indian population.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): In 1966 total disbursements of British Government economic aid to India were something over£44½ million. This represented approximately 1s. 10d. a head.

Mr. Marquand: In view of the articles which recently appeared in The Times, pointing to the danger of the virtual disintegration of Indian democracy and the immense importance to this country of maintaining democratic government in India, can my right hon. Friend explain the principles which lead him to allocate so much less aid per capita to India than he allocates to many countries which are, in fact, economically better off?

Mr. Bottomley: We recognise that India's needs are very great, and we are participating fully in the efforts that are being made by the Western Aid Consortium. British aid to India is currently about 10 per cent. of the total Western aid to India. I can only say that we have many responsibilities. Some countries depend upon us substantially for aid, and in their case we could not make cuts to meet the wishes of others.

Sir B. Craddock: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give the House any idea of the percentage of the amount

given which has been used to improve methods of agricultural production, and how much has been used in other directions?

Mr. Bottomley: In regard to India, we have made it as flexible as possible. We are not a food-producing country, so we cannot send food as such, but the money which is given to India is spent in a way which they think might further food production.

Mr. Bidwell: Can my right hon. Friend say what agencies are at work to determine that the aid is used in the most sensible and practical way? Is he aware that I recently visited India as their special guest, and formed the view that their urgent problems are not only irrigation and fertilisation, but also education? What is being done to assist in that direction?

Mr. Bottomley: I heard with interest of my hon. Friend's visit to India, and I congratulate him on the part he played in trying to show the Indians that we were meeting their wishes. I hope, at the same time, that he will acknowledge that it is India's responsibility to see how best the resources can be used.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will provide analytical computers for Indian agricultural universities.

Mr. Bottomley: If so requested by the Government of India, I would be ready to consider providing equipment of this kind within the normal programme of British financial aid to India.

Mr. Bidwell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Would not he agree that as the population of India constitutes half the population of the British Commonwealth of Nations—and bearing in mind our history of 200 years of occupation—we have a special responsibility in providing the most up-to-date aids to the young men of India who are battling against diseases of crops and famine in that country?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. As I have indicated in previous Answers, we do all that we can to assist.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will provide


books a-ad general printed matter to assist educationists in India.

Mr. Oram: The Ministry already provides books and periodicals in the educational field to India under the Low-Priced Books Scheme, the Management Book Gift Scheme and Colombo Plan technical assistance.

Mr. Bidwell: Would my right hon. Friend undertake to look closely at the scheme of assistance in this regard, bearing in mind the fact that there are pressures in India to dispense with the English language altogether and that many British educationists in India consider that they are not yet receiving sufficient aid of this type?

Mr. Oram: India has been by far the largest single market for the sale of books under the Low-Priced Books Scheme. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we must constantly watch the demand and respond to it whenever we can.

U.N.E.S.C.O.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Overseas Development, in view of the fact that the decision of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to deny aid to Portugal and South Africa as well as to Rhodesia is contrary to its constitution, whether Her Majesty's Government will raise this matter in the appropriate organ of this Organisation.

Mr. Bottomley: This matter was decided last November by the General Conference, the highest body of U.N.E.S.C.O., and there will not be an opportunity to raise it again until the next General Conference in 1968.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When will Her Majesty's Government make some stand against the corrosion of international standards by international organisations? Should not U.N.E.S.C.O. be at the service of all member countries, irrespective of ideology or régime, and did not this proposal, in fact, come from member States, which are themselves receiving very considerable aid?

Mr. Bottomley: We made that clear and, indeed, we voted against the decision on constitutional grounds so far as

Portugal is concerned, because as a member State of U.N.E.S.C.O., she had the right to be there.

British Virgin Islands

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he has now made a further allocation of funds for the British Virgin Islands; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): I understand the need to make the new Colonial Development and Welfare allocations for 1968 to 1970 as early as possible, but I cannot say at present when we shall be able to do this.

Mr. Marten: Does the Minister realise that if more investment could possibly go into the British Virgin Islands—and I recognise the Government's difficulties here—it would make the islands much more viable and they would not need further aid? Secondly, will he inform the Chancellor that the British Virgin Islands would be great dollar earners if we put the necessary investment into them?

Mr. Oram: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the second part of that supplementary question. As to the first part, I agree that our objective is to get the islands in a state of viable economy as soon as possible.

Under-developed Countries

Mr. Channon: asked the Minister of Overseas Development by how much he proposes to increase British economic aid to the under-developed countries during 1967.

Mr. Bottomley: I would refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave on 12th December to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).—[Vol. 738, c. 32–3.]

Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that that showed not an increase but a reduction in British aid to under-developed countries? Does not he think that if he is to make this reduction, it is most unfortunate that he should take it out on overseas students?

Mr. Bottomley: The responsibility of my Department is to ensure that overseas students' fees are met adequately. We recognise the difficulties that confront other countries but we have a right to see that our own economy is sound first. If we cannot do that, we cannot help others.

Mr. Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that, as far as the West Indies are concerned, for example, nothing of great importance will be held up as a result of these cuts in the next year?

Mr. Bottomley: As far as all countries are concerned, consistent with our ability to meet their wishes, we shall do so.

Lord Balniel: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect the U.N.C.T.A.D. Agreement of 1964, whereby the Government agreed to allocate I per cent. of the gross national product to overseas aid? Does not the figure recently announced show that we are falling below that 1 per cent.?

Mr. Bottomley: That is not so. We reached the figure of 1·17 per cent. in the past year, and I am confident that in the current year the figure will also be about 1 per cent.

Tonga

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what money has been given to Tonga to help with the rebuilding of the general hospital and other projects since December, 1966.

Mr. Bottomley: None so far this year. A request for £219,600 for the new hospital was received early in January and is now being considered.

Dame Joan Vickers: There was a slight misprint in the Question. The year should have been 1965 and not 1966. What did the right hon. Gentleman's representative report to him with regard to education, particularly the teachers' training college and the printing press? Will he help with either?

Mr. Bottomley: The report is being considered and in due course I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady a satisfactory reply.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend seek the co-operation of the Secretary of State for Defence in order to ensure that the £800,000-odd a year which we are now spending on building military airfields in Siam is spent instead on building a hospital in Tonga so as to save life rather than destroy it?

Mr. Bottomley: I am sure that my hon. Friend's supplementary question will be noted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Dependent Territories

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what money has been allocated to the still dependent territories, and for what projects, in 1966.

Mr. Bottomley: About £28 million. This includes budgetary aid, development grants and loans, technical assistance and C.D.C. investment.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does not he think it very important to see that the territories that are still dependent on us, and therefore cannot ask us personally for aid, are well equipped for the time they become independent? We are, after all, facing this difficulty at the present time, when territories in the West Indies are getting independence without being properly equipped.

Mr. Bottomley: I am conscious of the importance of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and I are in constant touch.

Mr. Wood: When will it be possible to make the statement foreshadowed by the Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs, on Second Reading of the West Indies Bill on Monday about continued assistance to the Leeward and Windward Islands after their new associated status takes effect?

Mr. Bottomley: We have never shirked our responsibilities to dependent territories both before and after independence.

Overseas Students (Fees)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps have been considered to offset the extra cost to developing countries of the decision to


treble fees for overseas students in Great Britain.

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps he is taking to provide additional assistance to overseas students accepted for places in institutions of higher education in this country whose fees are now to be raised.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development to what extent his Department will meet the increased fees now payable by Commonwealth students at universities and colleges of further education in this country.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action his Department will take to provide additional assistance to overseas students at universities and colleges in this country in view of the recent increase in fees.

Mr. Oram: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 20th January. In order to minimise any possible difficulties arising for students who will not benefit from the measures I described in that reply, the announcement of the increases was made at the earliest possible moment and before most institutions of higher education normally begin to notify students of their acceptance.—[Vol. 739; c. 147–48.]

Mr. Judd: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this must be seen in the context of the declining priority given by the Government to overseas aid generally? If we accept the move towards political independence as being worth while, we must provide the trained personnel to run independent countries, and future students are as important as present students.

Mr. Oram: I agree that there is a clear connection between this question and that of aid policy generally, but it is not the case that there is a declining will on the part of the Government in respect of aid to developing countries. There was, of course, a reduction connected with the measures announced on 20th July, but the basis for this is that no aid programme can succeed unless the home economy is sound and secure.

Mr. Fisher: Can the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of students from developing Commonwealth countries will

have their extra charges defrayed by his Department? What is to happen to those who, in the middle of courses, find they have not the means to meet the economic charge? Was this not a breach of faith with them by the Government?

Mr. Oram: The total of those affected is about 25,000, and some 6,000 students have their fees financed by their own Governments. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, be able to do the arithmetic himself. With regard to the private students, they are not a direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend but of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to whom the hon. Gentleman should put his question about them.

Mr. Goodhart: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report on the serious effect this increase may well have on future enrolments at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine? In view of the value of certain courses, particularly to overseas students, will the hon. Gentleman consider giving grants to this institution so that the whole cost of overseas students attending certain courses may be defrayed?

Mr. Oram: It has been indicated in earlier replies that it will be open to overseas Governments to submit suggestions about students whom they wish to sponsor, and these will be open to consideration by my Ministry.

Mr. Crawshaw: Does not my hon. Friend agree that overseas students are not only the most economical but the best ambassadors that this country has, and that the decision recently announced is resented by both sides of the House? Would he perhaps recommend this decision to the Secretary of State for Education and Science as a suitable candidate for any new abortion legislation?

Mr. Oram: I agree about the great value of having students from overseas in our educational institutions. I believe, however, that the effect of the proposed measures has been considerably exaggerated in the recent controversy.

Mr. Wood: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, of all forms of aid, this is one of the most useful and important? Would he not agree that the main burden


of this cut will fall on those least able to bear it?

Mr. Oram: I agree that this is an important form of aid, which is why we have made arrangements to ensure that those students for whom my Department is responsible do not suffer, nor the Governments who send them here. Questions about private students are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Is it not the case that this policy is equivalent to eating the seed corn and can prove, in the end, far more expensive and, indeed, dangerous if implemented at this stage? Will my hon. Friend make every effort to get the Secretary of State to rethink this myopic and dangerous proposal?

Mr. Oram: I assure my hon. Friend that consultations have taken place between our two Departments, with a satisfactory outcome for the students for whom our Department is responsible.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he has considered the effect upon developing countries of the increased fees for their students in the United Kingdom; and whether, in the light of this, he will take action to increase the capacity of universities particularly in the newer Commonwealth Dominions.

Mr. Oram: We cannot yet predict the precise effects but the situation will be watched. Substantial assistance has been given over the years to develop capacity in overseas institutions of higher education and we expect to continue this work in future.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend accept the view that this unpopular and backward financial step of cutting aid will hit many nations particularly in Africa where, as he knows, many villages and clans club together to send their best boys over here for education? Will he consider stepping up the number of teachers?

Mr. Oram: We are constantly seeking to recruit teachers for service overseas

and providing funds on a generous scale for establishment and expansion of educational institutions there.

World Food Board

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what initiative the Government have taken in trying to establish a World Food Board on the lines proposed by Lord Boyd-Orr.

Mr. Oram: This is one of the possibilities being considered under a comprehensive study of multilateral food aid instituted by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations which the British Government supported.

Mr. Dalyell: When does my hon. Friend expect some result from these consultations?

Mr. Oram: It is a matter for United Nations procedure. I cannot give any date as to when we can expect results.

Malawi

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Overseas Development why he has refused to help the Government of Malawi with their proposal to establish their capital at Lilongwe.

Mr. Bottomley: The British Government believe that in the deployment of British aid priority needs to be given at this stage to the most productive development which will help to reduce Malawi's present dependence on Britain for budgetary aid.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of Malawi, which has a most responsible record, as he would agree, in financial matters, has attached a high priority to having the capital of the country near the centre of the country, so as to be able to encourage and stimulate development? Will he think about this again?

Mr. Bottomley: I accept what has been said about the President and the Executive of that country, but we agreed with the British Economic Mission's recommendation, after it had been to that country, that the building of the capital should be deferred. At the moment, the British Government meet between one-quarter and one-third of Malawi's total budgetary aid expenditure. We believe


that the emphasis should be, first, on the kind of development which will relieve that kind of pressure.

Mr. James Johnson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the mathematical dead centre is not always the best nodal point for any country's capital?

Overseas Aid (Cuts)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what further precise details are now available of where the cuts in the overseas development programme are to be made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bottomley: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 19th January.—[Vol. 739; c. 116.]

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is unsatisfactory that we as a House should be expected to approve cuts without knowing their practical implications, territory by territory? Further, would he not agree that to plead current economic difficulties is shortsighted, because increased world purchasing power is so much in our long-term economic interests?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will appreciate that when aid is discussed, it is between the donor and the recipient, and not until a decision is reached is it in a form which can be presented to the House. When that time comes, it will be so presented.

Mr. John Hall: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that his attitude in replies to Questions on overseas aid this afternoon is in direct contrast to the attitude which he took when on these benches? Is it not time that the Government tried to implement in action what they have promised before General Elections?

Mr. Bottomley: The aid programme under the previous Government and this Government has been expanding each year. It is a policy on which both sides agree. Temporarily, because of economic difficulties, there has not been that continual expansion.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall also the successful Conference at Geneva in which my

right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took a leading part, in which Great Britain, along with other nations, was going to adopt expansive plans for helping the undeveloped countries? We were told by the Prime Minister that this is in the United Nations. Is it just being left there?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. The U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference had said that it was desirable that all the developed countries should give one per cent. of their national income to help in such a programme. The British Government have exceeded that, and I am fairly confident that we shall do so in future.

Mr. W. Baxter: As a considerable amount of the money which we grant to these countries goes in the form of buildings like hospitals and houses, will my right hon. Friend consult the Minister of Technology to see if we cannot devise a new method of constructing prefabricated buildings like hospitals in such places as the Congo with wood and plastic materials? This is possible and would be a better method of giving grants than money in certain cases.

Mr. Bottomley: We are constantly studying ideas of this kind in our own research organisation in the Ministry. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions, I should be glad to hear of them.

Mr. Norwood: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what consideration he gave to the effect that his decision to reduce British overseas aid in the year 1967–68 will have upon opinion in Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bottomley: The recipients of our aid are well aware that the amount we are able to give depends upon our own economic strength and I am sure they will understand the reasons for our decision about the level of the aid target next year.

Mr. Norwood: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a 10 per cent. cut is minimal in terms of this country's economic position and is well understood to be so in Africa? Since so large a proportion of our aid is directed there, the effect which it is bound to have on African opinion must far outweigh the advantages to our economy of such a small saving.

Mr. Bottomley: We are making a large contribution to African development and the discussions which we are having continually with African countries show that they accept that we have our difficulties but that they recognise that we are doing our best.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to think to earn gratitude by aid is not a good basis for it, but that to seek to lay the foundations of productive enterprise of all sorts is to the interests of both the giver and the receiver?

Mr. Bottomley: I hope that this point of view is shared by both sides of the House.

Mr. Norwood: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if the cuts in British overseas aid foreshadowed for 1967–68 indicate a reduction in Her Majesty's Government's preparedness to assist developing countries; and if he will give an undertaking that the programme of aid will not suffer further cuts in subsequent years.

Mr. Bottomley: Her Majesty's Government remain prepared and anxious to assist developing countries as far as our resources permit. I think the House understands that the economic crisis of last summer did require some restraint on overseas expenditure of all kinds. Resources for aid in future years will depend on our economic circumstances and I cannot forecast them now.

Mr. Norwood: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that that is a disappointing Answer, particularly in the light of his Answer to the previous Question, since one of the greatest dangers, now that the programme has been cut, is that people abroad, particularly in Africa, will feel that this is a reversal of the previous trend of ever-increasing aid to which he referred earlier?

Mr. Bottomley: I imagine that my hon. Friend has read the recent White Paper on overseas development, which shows what has been done. We will keep that up, to the extent which is possible consistent with our economic difficulties, but he will no doubt agree that the introduction of interest-free loans and improvements of that kind mean that aid, if not in substance, has in fact increased.

Mr. Wood: How far are the Answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given this afternoon to this and other Questions on the subject consistent with the Labour Party's 1964 manifesto, which promised to increase the share of our national income devoted to essential aid programmes?

Mr. Bottomley: As I explained, we are meeting the requirements laid down by the United Nations. We should like to do more, but in present economic circumstances it is not possible.

Kenya

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will publish a summary of the terms and conditions under which Her Majesty's Government grants and loans were made to the Government of Kenya for the Million Acre Scheme and the subsequent 400,000 Acre Scheme, respectively.

Mr. Bottomley: The terms of our financial assistance for both schemes are set out in the Civil Estimates Class II, 9. So far as the Million Acre Scheme is concerned, further information is contained in the 1962–63 annual report of the Settlement Fund Trustees of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. The 400,000 acre scheme has begun to be implemented, but the Memorandum of Understanding which sets out the detailed conditions governing this scheme has not yet been signed by the two Governments. As soon as this has taken place I will be glad to inform the hon. Member of the main points of this Memorandum.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is upset over the terms of the valuation of both these schemes? Are these terms of valuation readily available to people in Kenya? Will he bear in mind that the Land Bank has been closed for six months, which makes the transfer of land extremely difficult?

Mr. Bottomley: I am told that the terms of valuation are available to the people in Kenya.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the progress of compassionate land purchase schemes for British residents in Kenya.

Mr. Bottomley: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 18th October last—[Vol. 734: c. 30]—Her Majesty's Government have provided an interest-free loan to the Kenya Government to enable them to offer to purchase the farms of the remaining 18 outstanding cases. Six of these have so far accepted the offers. Nineteen of the previous round of cases have now accepted offers.

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as people get older, this becomes a continuing liability? Is a new scheme being worked out to compensate such people who may be security risks or who become infirm in the next few years, but who are not now on the list?

Mr. Bottomley: A new scheme has not been worked out, but there is provision for the consideration of compassionate cases.

Rhodesia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total amount of United Kingdom aid given to Rhodesia, apart from the contribution to the University College in Salisbury; and for what purposes it was granted.

Mr. Bottomley: Since 1953 loans totalling £4,855,000 have been made for African housing and education and for general development; and grants of £6,569,000 have been given, of which £4 million was to help Rhodesia with her share of the ex-Federal public debt and the balance mainly for capital development at the University College. These figures do not include the payments which are still being made to the University College in support of its recurrent costs.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not then the case that standards of living and social services which compare favourably with nearly every other part of Africa have been achieved in Rhodesia by the efforts of all races in that country, with very little help from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, because of the economic development in Rhodesia, there has not been the same need for the help given in other parts of Africa.

The quarrel with Rhodesia is not about its economic development but its constitutional form.

Overseas Aid (Policy)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Overseas Development to what extent he is prepared to reduce the tying of aid if other donor countries would do the same; and whether he will initiate discussions with the principal donor countries with a view to bringing about such a change in aid policy.

Mr. Bottomley: Agreed progress in this direction would be welcome. Various countries' balance of payments problems, including our own, have inhibited recent discussions and make it difficult for us to give a lead.

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that most donor countries pay lip-service to the idea of untying aid but that nobody seems to be prepared to do much for fear that others will not? Will he, therefore, initiate discussions with the main donor countries with the aim of securing a common change of policy which would be helpful to the beneficiaries?

Mr. Bottomley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that at the Colombo Plan meeting and at the Asian Development Bank conference I did discuss these matters. We can only hope that discussions among the various delegates to these conferences will, in due course, bear fruit.

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the net cost to this country in foreign currency of the Government's programme of overseas aid, taking into account interest and loan repayments, payments to pensioners living in this country, and exports resulting from tied grants and loans.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not practicable to calculate the foreign currency cost of the whole aid programme. We have made estimates of the foreign exchange cost of marginal changes in the programme, which might affect decisions on its size. As is made clear in paragraph 61 of Cmnd. 3180, only about one-third —or rather more in certain circumstances—of a change in the size of the


programme would have a direct effect on our balance of payments.

Mr. Clark: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that before cutting the aid programme on the grounds of balance of payments difficulties, one should conduct a careful analysis into the foreign currency costs of that programme?

Mr. Bottomley: The difficulty is that we cannot say what other use might have been made of the goods and services supplied as aid. It is on this basis that we must try to find out the true situation, and it is really impossible to do it.

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how the net total of overseas aid in the current year, allowing for interest and loan repayments, compares with the net total in 1960–61.

Mr. Bottomley: The net total of Government aid in 1960–61 was £126·5 million. The outturn for this year is not yet known. The latest year for which we have a figure is 1965–66, when it was £153·7 million.

Mr. Clark: Does this very small increase over this five-year period make good the considerably increased salaries involved in overseas services in the last five years, also bearing in mind the increase in the price of goods which go to make up aid?

Mr. Bottomley: I repeat, regarding the question of aid generally, that the interest payments in the past coupled with the present reduction in interest receipts, means that, in the aggregate, more aid is being given.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what consideration he gives, in negotiating agreements for the provision of tied aid to developing countries, to the relative economic efficiency of the British industry which is to supply the goods concerned.

Mr. Bottomley: We try to ensure that development needs are met by the supply of goods and services which are well and economically produced in this country.

Mr. Onslow: In that case, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be most dangerous and wasteful if money used in tied aid were ever to

become a subsidy to inefficient industry and a barrier to necessary structural change in our economy?

Mr. Bottomley: I agree, and our endeavour is to see that that is avoided. The countries concerned, which place the orders, not only see that the right tenders are accepted but that the types of goods they require are supplied.

Developing Countries (Private Investment)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what total of British private investment in developing countries will need to be achieved in the year 1967–68 if the flow of financial resources from Great Britain to those countries is to achieve the level of one per cent. of national income in that year.

Mr. Bottomley: I regret that no precise answer can be given since a number of the factors involved, such as the level of national income, can only be estimated. It is, however, my expectation that we shall meet the one per cent. target.

Mr. Onslow: While appreciating that the Minister does not have the faintest idea of what the G.N.P. will be in 12 months' time, assuming that he wishes to achieve a figure of 1 per cent. and to see that level maintained—although it is a quite arbitrary and meaningless figure in economic terms—how can he expect private enterprise to increase its investment in developing countries if the Government persist in pursuing their present policies?

Mr. Bottomley: In view of the economic situation and the way in which it affects both Government aid and private investment overseas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—it is hoped that, despite our economic difficulties, both Government aid and private investment will be increased.

Mr. James Johnson: Does this Question make any sense at all, bearing in mind that if one looks carefully at the two parts of it they appear to have no connection whatever?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's task of finding 1 per cent. of the national income for this purpose being made progressively easier for


him by the successful efforts of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the national income?

Hon. Members: Answer.

International Development Association

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development in view of the useful rôle of the International Development Association in improving the effectiveness of aid and his aim to make British aid, with its reduced target for 1967, more effective, he will increase Great Britain's subscription to the Association.

Mr. Bottomley: Our 1967 contribution was settled in 1964 at £11·5 million. Future contributions will have to be settled in fresh negotiations with the World Bank and the donors.

Sir G. Sinclair: Would not the Minister consider this a sad retreat from the brave statements made when the Ministry was established? What is he doing to fulfil the pledge to increase the proportion of multilateral aid in the total aid programme of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I refresh his memory by reminding him that in a Written Reply on 25th January I stated:
Her Majesty's Government take the view that the funds of I.D.A. should be substantially replenished, but their future size is still for negotiation between the World Bank and the contributors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 313.]

Lord Balniel: Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), does not the right hon. Gentleman remember the clear undertaking given in the Labour Party's manifesto to increase the share of the gross national product which would be devoted to overseas aid? How can he square his conscience and the replies he has been giving to this and previous Questions with that promise given only a few months ago?

Mr. Bottomley: I repeat what I have said on several occasions; that both sides of the House are agreed that we should go on expanding our aid programme. [Interruption.] Certainly most hon. Members take that view. In this case it has

been expanding continually, although at the moment, temporarily, there has been a halt in that expansion but, like most hon. Members, I hope that, in due course, the expansion will continue.

United Arab Republic

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what aid will be given to the Government of the United Arab Republic during 1967–68.

Mr. Bottomley: My Ministry has at present no plans to give aid to the United Arab Republic during 1967–68.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a financial team from Egypt is in Britain asking for substantial extensions of credit? Why should we contemplate giving massive financial help to the U.A.R. when we are cutting down so sharply on our Maltese friends?

Mr. Bottomley: It must have escaped the notice of the hon. Member that we are not in diplomatic relations with the U.A.R., and therefore the question as put by him does not arise.

Teaching Hospitals (Exchange of Staff)

Mr Pavitt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many teaching hospitals have now established links for the exchange of staff and ideas with overseas medical schools; if he will publish a list of such links in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and what action he is taking to extend this form of assistance.

Mr. Oram: I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the 11 teaching hospitals, which are now exchanging staff with overseas medical schools on a continuing basis, but as the record of proceedings of the Edinburgh Commonwealth Medical Conference shows, this is only part of the valuable associations which are developing between medical institutions here and overseas.
Several new links are under consideration, and all possible assistance is being given by the Ministry to this form of aid.

Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful for the effort that has been made by the Ministry and doctors to increase this kind of work. Can my hon. Friend say if he is


obtaining any assurances from his right hon. Friends who are in charge of health and education with a view to making sure that doctors who go overseas do not lose their places in the career structure on this side as a result of going overseas?

TEACHING HOSPITALS EXCHANGING STAFF WITH MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS OVERSEAS


Teaching Hospital
Overseas Institution


Medical Faculty, Glasgow University
Nairobi Extension of the Medical Faculty, Makerere.



Government Medical School, Dar-es-Salaam.


Medical Faculty, Edinburgh University
Medical Faculty, University of Baroda.


Medical Faculty, Bristol University
Medical Faculty, Makerere.



University of the West Indies and University College Hospital.



Medical Faculty, University of Ibadan.


Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, London.
Medical Faculty, Makerere.


Royal Free Hospital, London
University of the West Indies and University College Hospital.



Medical Faculty, University of Ibadan.


St. Thomas's Hospital, London
University College Hospital, West Indies.


Royal Ear, Nose and Throat Hospital, London
University of the West Indies and University College Hospital.


St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin, London.
Medical Faculty, University of Ibadan.


King's College Hospital, Medical School, London
Medical Faculty, University of Ibadan.


Medical Faculty, Birmingham University
Medical Faculty, University College, Rhodesia.


Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, London
Orthopaedic Hospital, Kano.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Prices and Incomes Policy

Mr. Winnick: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will now make a detailed statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on incomes after the end of the present 12-months' period.

Mr. Channon: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he intends to publish a White Paper dealing with the Government's prices and incomes policy after 1st July.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will make a statement of Government intentions on the incomes policy it will pursue after the period of severe restraint ends in July.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a detailed statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on incomes and dividends after the end of the period of severe restraint.

Mr. Oram: This is a matter to which we are constantly giving attention, in co-operation with my right hon. Friends. They, in fact, participated in the Edinburgh Conference to which I referred in my original Answer.

Following is the information:

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): Consultations are now taking place with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about the criteria which should govern prices and incomes behaviour after the period of severe restraint. The Government will make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt by many wage and salary earners and the trade union movement in this matter? Could he give a pledge that the present freeze will not be extended beyond July, and will he deny that there will be crippling powers which would undermine trade union normal collective bargaining?

Mr. Lee: There is no question of extending the freeze after this particular period. We are in consultation with the C.B.I. and the unions on the other matter.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if Part IV lapses in July this year and needs statutory authority to extend it, he will give a definite pledge in relation to his earlier


Answer that it is not intended to introduce legislation to extend in any way Part IV?

Mr. Lee: As I tried to intimate, the general principle is that we consult first and decide after.

Mr. Orme: As the Minister knows, the T.U.C. has already made its views very clear on this matter, and I understand the C.B.I. has as well. Therefore, what are the Government waiting for now in their own declaration?

Mr. Lee: Despite the admiration we all feel for the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., I feel sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that they had taken over the government of the country.

Sir J. Rodgers: Whether compulsory wage fixing is continued or not, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep dissatisfaction that is felt at the moment about the exemption of large classes of wage-earners whose salaries are fixed by annual increments? Whatever system follows the present system, will he do something to remove this anomally which is annoying millions of workers?

Mr. Lee: I quite agree that the system of free collective bargaining has produced anomalies of that type. We seek to remedy them by our policy.

Mr. Heffer: Further to the point made in the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government continue to pursue their policy as they have done, the trade union movement will withdraw their support and there will not be a Labour Government afterwards? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Lee: Hon. Members opposite seem to think that that is the only chance they have of getting rid of a Labour Government. Already in my Answers I have explained that we are in the closest contact with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., and I am quite certain that as a result we shall get the right answer.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Government utterances on this subject seem to pile confusion on obscurity? Can he explain what his right

hon. Friend the Leader of the House meant by his reference to new experiments between State planning and collective bargaining, as it seems humbug to us?

Mr. Lee: I know that the party opposite is adept at producing confusion. We must point to the fact that in the last six months of this Government's policy living standards have been maintained at a more stable level than in any period prior to that.

RHODESIA

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position on Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 19th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 648.]

Mr. Winnick: Could the Prime Minister tell us when it is likely that there will be a progress report on the effects of United Nations mandatory sanctions? After all the time he has been involved in this particular question of Rhodesia and looking back over the last two and a half years, does he feel that if the Conservative Opposition had played straight on the issue it would have been easier to have ended U.D.I.?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, my hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that a report is due on the functioning of sanctions, I think, next month at the United Nations. With regard to the second question, certainly the confusion among hon. Members opposite has not helped in these matters, but I think the problems are too deep-seated and we are dealing with men who are far too intransigent for this to have been the issue. It is, of course, a fact that in Mr. Smith's mind—and he was only too ready to accept what he was repeatedly told in the period after the "Tiger" talks—the Labour Government would be out in three months and the Conservatives would be there to give him what he wanted.

Mr. Lubbock: What is the latest position regarding the bank notes manufactured in Germany for the illegal régime? Do powers exist to prevent the export of those notes to Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I think this is subject to appeal and is sub judice and I ought not to make any comment on it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is the Prime Minister aware of the genuine and continuing doubt felt among many lawyers as to the basis and validity of the Government's reference of this matter to the United Nations and the consequential action under Chapter VII, which has not been dispelled by the statement of the Lord Chancellor in another place? Will he therefore take steps to see if an advisory opinion cannot be considered from the International Court?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that some lawyers, including the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), take those views. I shall certainly inform the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with him, but for my part I accept the authority of the Lord Chancellor in this matter.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will have seen the most recent speech by Mr. Smith in Salisbury in which he indicated that he and his colleagues were considering moving towards an entirely fresh constitution for Rhodesia, that some aspects of this constitution indicate a movement towards apartheid, which would be most undesirable, and that this only confirms the fears which so many of us on this side of the House have held for a long time. May I put this question to the Prime Minister? In these circumstances, is he prepared to allow the general situation to go on developing without taking any action of any kind whatever and only waiting for the report of U Thant at the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing concern about the move to apartheid and also the hints of a republic, but it was not this side of the House which voted to support the rejection of the "Tiger" agreement by Mr. Smith when we all now know that Mr. Smith wanted the "Tiger" agreement and was over-ridden by the very extremists who were encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister may go on trying to deceive the rest of the world about what—[Interruption.] All he

is doing is succeeding in deceiving himself. Will the Prime Minister now address himself to the question and give the House a serious answer?

The Prime Minister: I do not deceive myself about the right hon. Gentleman's vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's preamble first and then reply to his question. I do not deceive myself about the right hon. Gentleman's vote, which is on the record in this House, and which he could have avoided by an honest Amendment to our Motion.
As to the second question, the right hon. Gentleman will know that it is no good at all entering into discussions with Mr. Smith on this question, if that is what he is suggesting, because we did have discussions with Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith wanted to carry them out. He actually, as I have told the House, had a majority in his Cabinet half-way through the discussions, but the extremists took over. We are not going to negotiate with those extremists.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the submission to Parliament of any settlement with Rhodesia which involves independence before majority rule.

The Prime Minister: The position is as set out in the Answers I gave to Questions on 20th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 1175.]

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is it right to say that the conditions laid down in paragraph 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué refers to an illegal régime? Would the Prime Minister make quite clear what are the conditions under which a return to legality is possible? Is it a return to the 1961 Constitution—nothing more and nothing less?

The Prime Minister: I have answered this question on previous occasions. The answer to the first part of the Question is that paragraph 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, both (a) and (b), is now in force. With regard to a return to constitutionality and an ending of the illegal régime, they could go back immediately to the 1961 Constitution and we could negotiate from there. This has been made clear in previous answers.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend now consider calling a conference with other African leaders, in view of the serious situation and the whole question of Rhodesia, which is now a world matter and not merely a British matter?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure if my hon. Friend means a conference of African leaders in Rhodesia. I dealt with that question in answer to Questions the other day. If he is referring to African Commonwealth leaders, this matter was discussed very fully and at great length as recently as September. We are in the closest touch with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, both in Africa and more widely.

Mr. Maudling: The Prime Minister was prepared a few weeks ago to contemplate independence before majority rule. Is it a fact that he is now not prepared to contemplate independence before majority rule under any Government whatsoever in Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I made that perfectly plain in my statement on 20th December. After a very hard fight with the Commonwealth, when the whole future of the Commonwealth was at stake, we secured their reluctant agreement to three months more to try to get an agreement with Mr. Smith and his colleagues or anyone else in Rhodesia, because my right hon. Friend met sections of all opinion there. This was wantonly rejected by the Rhodesians after they had every chance, on the basis of proposals which many people would have felt went a very long way on our behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too far."] Many, including many Commonwealth leaders, would have felt they went too far. We went to the limit in trying to reach an agreement. We had exhausted the three months. I was not prepared to go on seeing the risk of the Commonwealth being destroyed for a bunch of racialists in Rhodesia.

Mr. Maudling: Does that mean that, whoever might be the Government of Rhodesia, the terms from now on are unconditional surrender?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman, most unusually, is talking nonsense here. There is no question of unconditional surrender. The only surrender we are asking for is the

surrender of an illegal rebellion. That is what we are asking for. We asked for it on the "Tiger" and offered some very attractive terms, in some ways more attractive than the Conservative Government's 1961 Constitution, which the Conservative Government rightly said was never a basis for independence. We went to great lengths to secure a package which would have meant the end of a rebellion. They decided that their rebellion was more important than an agreement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Did not the Prime Minister say just now that he would not concede independence to any Government before majority rule?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman must have studied many times, because he has made important speeches on this, the statement of the Commonwealth Conference which on 20th December I said was in force. That statement said that we would not commend to the House proposals which would involve independence for Rhodesia ahead of majority rule. I said that on 20th December. [HON. MEMBERS: "Any Government?"] Certainly any Government—independence for Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman knew this perfectly well on 20th December. I remember his comments at the time. So far as that is concerned, the Rhodesian people, a legal Rhodesian Government, could enjoy all the very extensive degree of self-government that they had had before independence, but they chose rebellion as their course and they rejected the idea of deserting that rebellion. At the end of the day rebellion was more important than independence.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise, as apparently right hon. Members opposite fail to realise, that, if a legal Government were formed in Rhodesia, we should expect that Government to act legally?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The very basis of a return to legality would mean that we would then be dealing with a legal Government in Rhodesia. The difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that we draw a sharp distinction between legality and illegality, as my right hon. Friend does. We should be able to


negotiate with them, I hope, to get improvements in the Constitution—improvements, I hope, to take account of some of the "Tiger" proposals. We would be prepared to discuss easements that they might feel helpful. But Rhodesia chose independence and rebellion, and right hon. Members opposite backed them in their choice.

Mr. Heath: Leaving aside the Prime Minister's last ridiculous sentence, is the Prime Minister really saying that, if there were to be a moderate Government in Rhodesia who accepted the constitutional proposals worked out on the "Tiger", with suitable interim arrangements, he would not then be prepared to go back to the Commonwealth and see whether independence could be granted before African majority rule? Is that what he is really saying?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really must not work himself up into a rage on something—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which he has known to be the position since 20th December and which he has known would be the position from the Commonwealth communiqué. Indeed, he made an appeal to the Rhodesian people to reject the Commonwealth communiqué and he got his answer. He can now be landed with the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered his question three times this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it, I will tell him again. The position is, as I said on 20th December, that we have now withdrawn any suggestion that we can commend to the House independence ahead of majority rule for Rhodesia. We said it in September. They had three months. We said it in December, against the right hon. Gentleman. We have been saying it ever since, and some day the right hon. Gentleman will realise what it means.

Mr. Heath: I put this direct question to the Prime Minister, because I believe that it is of immense importance. If there is a moderate Government coming to power in Rhodesia who are prepared to accept the constitution worked out on the "Tiger", with suitable interim arrangements, will the Prime Minister then go back to the Commonwealth and ask them whether it is possible to arrange for

independence before African majority rule?

The Prime Minister: While the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a moderate Government may be different from mine, he has correctly stated the position. We are operating the agreement made by the Commonwealth. If the right hon. Gentleman would now start to use his influence to get a moderate Government accepted —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the question. If the right hon. Gentleman, for a change, would now encourage the forces of moderation, if a new situation were created, of course we would discuss it at the next Commonwealth Conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course we would discuss the situation, as we always shall be discussing the Rhodesian situation, at the next Commonwealth Conference. But we are bound by the agreement with the Commonwealth, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should now help to get a moderate Government and stop[Interruption.]—by his votes and by his speeches supporting the extremists who rejected moderation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue by noise.

GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES

Mr. Marquand: asked the Prime Minister whether he will implement the recommendations contained in paragraphs 106 and 107 of the Fourth Report of the Estimates Committee on Government Statistical Services relating to the possibility of upgrading the post of Director of the Central Statistical Office and to the position of the Central Statistical Office in the Government machine.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 20th January to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).—[Vol. 739, c. 156.]

Mr. Marquand: With apologies for asking a somewhat anticlimactic question, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the Estimates Committee's Report shows that at the moment the needs of the Departments which use


statistics are not properly taken into account by the Departments which collect them and that this is why this point about the C.S.O. is so important? Will he, therefore, give an assurance that, when a Government statement is made on this matter, this point will be covered in it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There will be a reply from the Treasury to the Estimates Committee in the normal way in the near future. We are considering this very urgently. I do not think that the main question is the position of the C.S.O. I think that the main problem is how far it will be possible to get the additional figures which ire required for economic purposes and for the purposes of the House, as well as of the Government, without adding unduly to the burden on the firms concerned. If we can do something to rationalise the collection of some of these statistics and lessen the burden, that will be a very useful by-product of this exercise.

BRUSSELS (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper.

Mr. MARTEN: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his official visit to Brussels.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. Q15.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Brussels on 31st January to 1st February for discussions with the Belgian Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Minister for European Affairs on the question of possible British entry into the European Economic Community. The discussions were cordial and businesslike. Among the subjects discussed were the problems raised for the United Kingdom by the Community's policies on agriculture, including the implications of the latter for the Commonwealth, and on the freedom of capital movements; as well as certain questions raised by our Belgian colleagues on monetary matters arising out of the international rôle of sterling and

the sterling balances; and the consequences for the Community if the United Kingdom and other European countries become members of it. We also had a very full discussion on the technological aspects of European integration. We found the Belgian Ministers and ourselves very close to each other in our views. This meeting, as the other meetings so far in our series of visits to the capitals of the Six, was helpful both in identifying and also in narrowing the areas of difficulty.
We also had the opportunity in Brussels of a useful talk with the President of the EURATOM Commission, two of the Vice-Presidents of the E.E.C. Commission, and some of their colleagues. In this talk we benefited greatly from the expertise of the Commissioners.
My right hon. Friend and I are now at the half-way stage of our visits to the Six capitals. If I were to sum up our impressions, I would say that these first three visits have confirmed our conviction that we were right to make this personal high-level approach. We—and our friends in Europe—are now, I believe, far clearer in our minds about how the issues at stake could be resolved, given the necessary good will. We approach our remaining visits in the same spirit and we are confident that they will be equally helpful.

Mr. Marten: If the remaining visits go at the same tempo, what indication can the Prime Minister give of when formal application for entry would be made? Would it be in April, before or after a summit meeting? Second, with reference to the discussions on finance, will he say what the Belgian attitude was towards assistance to sterling under Article 108 of the Treaty if sterling got into difficulties?

The Prime Minister: It would be impossible at this stage to make any forecast in response to the first question the hon. Gentleman raises. I told the House that, when we had finished the talks, we would have to consider whether what we had discovered led us to believe that our essential interests could be adequately safeguarded by making such an application. Obviously, I cannot forecast a date or the relation to the timing of various events within the Six.
On the second point, there was no discussion about giving assistance to sterling. Our Belgian friends were as conscious as most people in other countries of the very robust strength of sterling. The discussion which was raised —here Article 108 was quoted; I think I quoted it myself—was on the problem of whether it would be possible for a member of the Community with a currency which is traded worldwide and which has banker's obligations as well, to be assimilated within the problems of the Six. We had a very long and useful discussion on that. We certainly did discuss Article 108, which is mainly related to balance of payments difficulties of an individual member and only in passing refers to currency difficulties.

Mrs. Renée Short: Did my right hon. Friend get any impression from the Belgian Ministers that the Belgian Government would be willing to support changes in any of the several clauses of the Treaty of Rome which are inimical to British interests and those of a Socialist-planned economy? Second, did he discuss with the Belgian Ministers the possibility of an approach to the countries of Eastern Europe on what their attitude would be if they, too, made an approach to join the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, as I made clear in the House in November—I think that all our talks very much confirm this provisional conclusion—the Treaty of Rome itself is not and need not be a main obstacle to the problem of British entry. We have been discussing some of the specific problems, notably agriculture and one or two of the other problems, particularly agricultural finance regulations.
On the second point, the importance of, for example, greater technological strength in Europe, such as could result from our proposals, on hopes of getting a wider Europe both economically and politically, played a central part in our discussions in Paris and again in Brussels. This has been more and more one of the chief motifs of these discussions, so to that extent my hon. Friend can rest content. But I have not heard any suggestion at present that Eastern European countries wish to adhere to the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Turton: In view of the Prime Minister's references to the position of sterling, will he make clear that we could in no circumstances abandon our position as banker for the overseas sterling area on which so much of our trade, both visible and invisible, depends?

The Prime Minister: What we have made clear is that the rôle of sterling not only in the banking capacity in relation to the sterling area, but also as a currency traded and accepted all over the world, could and should be a strength to Europe and not a weakness. This has been the basis on which we have discussed the problem, and I believe that there is more and more understanding of this situation.

Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend make perfectly clear that the present round of conversations is solely for finding out whether we could proceed to negotiations on the basis of the five principles laid down by the Annual Conference of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; on 10th November I said that the purpose of these talks was to see whether there was a basis for ultimate negotiation, and in the debate which followed I explained this. I have said several times from this Dispatch Box that we stand by the principles we have laid down, but I have said also that, of those five, two or three have now been very considerably eroded by the passage of events, not least, for example, the first one to which we attached great importance, namely, the question of the other E.F.T.A. countries. There were great difficulties, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition recalls, about the E.F.T.A. neutrals. I do not believe that that any longer constitutes a difficulty, and the same applies to certain other aspects of the five principles.

Mr. Lubbock: What proposals did the Prime Minister make on technological co-operation between Great Britain and Europe, and were these proposals related to the machinery for Anglo-European co-operation or to particular projects?

The Prime Minister: In all our talks we were referring particularly to machinery for technological co-operation, with, of course, illustrations from specific cases such as the recent aircraft deal with


France, computers and other important technological problems. But what we have had to make clear—I am sure that this is now understood—is that what hopes there are of technological co-operation as between Governments would be very limited in present circumstances and that the technological co-operation we foresee, whether through a special new community or mergers of the Communities or in any other way, could become a reality only between members of the same market. Technology and market must go together.

Mr. Henig: Could my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion made in certain quarters that the correct relationship for Britain with the European Community ought to be that of association under Article 238? Was this suggestion put forward by any of the Governments to whom he has spoken, and what response did the British Government make?

The Prime Minister: I replied to this question at Question Time on Tuesday when I was specifically asked about our attitude to proposals for association. It would not be right for me to say what specific ideas were aired in the course of discussions, which, of course, have never been negotiations, or on the basis of trading or exchanging offers one for another.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the question of freedom of capital movement was raised on the initiative of the Belgians, and in view of the confidence the Prime Minister has expressed in the future of sterling, may I ask if he could give the House some indication of how optimistic a forecast he was able to give the Belgians on this issue? Was it D plus 10, D plus 50, or D plus 3,000?

The Prime Minister: There are no "Ds" at all in this. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing, because of the shorthand way in which I spoke, three separate issues. One was the question of the strength of sterling as a currency, of which the world is in no doubt. The second was the question of the institution, if I may use that phrase, of the sterling area, of sterling as a trading and banking currency, which causes concern to some members of the Six. The third point is the problems raised for Britain by the

provisions for freedom of capital movement, particularly as regards portfolio investment.
The hon. Member is wrong to think that this matter was raised on the initiative of the Belgians. We made clear from the debate in the House—and the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) had this feeling when he was negotiating three or four years ago—that the problem of capital movement, if the Treaty of Rome is applied just like that to this country, with our special responsibilities, would be difficult, and needs to be overcome by some appropriate means.

Mr. Roebuck: Did the Prime Minister have any discussions with the Belgians about defence? Was the fact that the Common Market countries have conscription whereas we do not mentioned, and did he ask the Belgians whether they would assist him in putting pressure on the President of France to sign a test ban treaty?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Defence was not discussed and nor were conscription or a test ban treaty.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister mentioned the important position of the E.F.T.A. countries. Does that mean that discussions so far with the Governments and the Commission have shown him that they are all prepared for the other E.F.T.A. countries to become full members or associated with the Community at the same time as ourselves?

The Prime Minister: I think that the difficulties of three or four years ago about the neutrals have been overcome and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, extended discussions have been going on with Austria which probably would have been inconceivable three or four years ago. That difficulty is overcome. One of the problems that some members of the Six have is not of opposition to the other E.F.T.A. countries as such, or to ourselves, but the feeling that they have now got the Community working as a compact agreement and piece of machinery, that it has come through many difficulties and is now running relatively smoothly. They see the great difficulties of reconstructing it to accomodate not Britain or any given E.F.T.A. country, but a considerable number of other countries. Some of them still fear


the effect on the Community of that degree of widening. I have said that widening, so far from weakening the Community, would mean strength in our view.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend has said that the neutral countries no longer present a problem. Would he nevertheless indicate what discussions there have been on the question of our so-called special relations with the United States, and how far they are likely to affect our entry into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: It will be clear that in these discussions, as I and my right hon. Friend have said in the capitals we have visited and in the House, we are speaking for Britain. We are in no sense interceding, negotiating or discussing on behalf of the other E.F.T.A. countries, which will make their own decisions and conduct their own negotiations. On the United States, I think I can say without breaching too far the confidentiality of the talks, that that matter has been raised to an infinitely smaller extent than at one time many of us would have felt likely.

Mr. Kershaw: Could the Prime Minister explain to those countries which complain of sterling being a world currency that if they managed their currency in a less restricted manner they could also have their currencies used as world reserve currencies?

The Prime Minister: I was not going to say anything quite so offensive, certainly not to my hosts in Brussels or elsewhere, because that does not apply in those countries. For something like 75 minutes I gave them an exposition on this problem which I would not wish to inflict on the House. I dealt with most relevant aspects, including the fact that certain European currencies are being encouraged to develop in a more worldwide sense. That will help their understanding of our problems and will, similarly, strengthen Europe as adherence to sterling of Europe would do.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Could my right hon. Friend clarify his statement that the Treaty of Rome need not be an obstacle to our entry? Does that mean that we accept every word of the Treaty as it now stands, or that we accept only the

main principles and would renegotiate some clauses?

The Prime Minister: I would recommend my hon. Friend to look up the exact words I used on 10th November and a subsequent date, and which I set out in considerably more detail in my speech at Strasbourg, a copy of which is in the Library. Of course amendments will be needed. They are provided for in Article 237, on admission of new members, consequential amendments relating to financial subscriptions, voting and the rest. Provided our essential British and Commonwealth interests can be met in some appropriate manner, I do not see the Treaty of Rome as an obstacle to our entry.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House what were the views of the Belgian Government on the Commonwealth, and particularly the special problem of New Zealand?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that in all our discussions, as in the discussions four years ago, the special position of New Zealand was not only in our minds but in our discussions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need be in any doubt about the recognition of those problems by those with whom we have been talking.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Heath, Business Question—

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have observed that at Question Time today we got through only three Questions to the Prime Minister. I have the impression that that was largely due to the increasing length of the Answers by the Prime Minister. Would it not help to expedite Questions by cutting them down a bit?

Mr. James Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I call your attention to the fact that on one of those questions no fewer than three Front Bench Members opposite intervened?

Mr. Speaker: It is a general rule that if Answers and supplementary Questions are short we can get more Questions and


Answers in. I am not prepared to distribute criticism or blame to either side for the fact that only three of the Prime Minister's Questions were answered. Mr. Heath—Business Question.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The House has a lot of business to do today. I hope that we shall not pursue points of order, taking up very precious time of a very precious institution.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but there is an important point here. When the Prime Minister returned from Paris he declined to answer Questions about his visit at the end of Question Time and took up time during Question Time answering them. Today he has answered Questions about his visit to Brussels at the end of Question Time, and as a result there was a fuller flow of Questions without interrupting Question Time itself. Is it not more satisfactory that that system should be adopted on the occasions of his other visits to European capitals?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that both Front Benches will take note of the hon. Gentleman's observation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 6TH FEBRUARY: In the morning—

Resumed debate on the Motion on the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order.

Motion on the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order.

In the afternoon—

Second Reading of the Fugitive Offenders Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 8 o'clock.

Motions on the Southern Rhodesia (Prohibited Trade and Dealings) Orders.

TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—There Will be a debate on the Press, which will

arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

If necessary, completion of consideration of the Motion on the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order.

Motion on the Hartlepool Order.

WEDNESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY: In the morning—

Motion on the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order.

In the afternoon—

Remaining stages of the Housing (Financial Provisions &c.) (Scotland) Bill and of the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Bill.

Motions on the Sea Fisheries Order and on the Exchequer Equalisation Grant (Scotland) Order.

THURSDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the First Report and the Fifth Special Report, 1966–67, from the Estimates Committee on Police.

FRIDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions.

The Business proposed on

MONDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY: In the morning—

Second Reading of the Plant Health Bill [Lords] and the Forestry Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.

Remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill.

In the afternoon—

Supply [8th allotted day]:

Debate on a topic to be announced later.

Mr. Heath: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. There does not seem to be any provision in next week's business for taking the further stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill, should the right hon. Gentleman be successful in getting the Second Reading today. It is no concern of this side of the House, of course, if the Government do not want it, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman should consider that in his own interests.
Secondly, we are deeply concerned with the situation in Aden and would very much like to debate it, and the situation


in the Middle East generally, at as early a date as possible.
Finally, can the Leader of the House tell me when the Defence White Paper will be published, and can he give us an assurance that there will not be delay, as there was last year?

Mr. Crossman: On the last point, I hope to make a firm statement on the date next week on business. As to Aden and the Middle East, I will certainly bear the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. As for the Consolidated Fund Bill, we hope to get the Second Reading today.

Mr. John Hynd: I had the impression —it may be wrong—that last week we were promised a debate on transport next week or the following week. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the debate will take place?

Mr. Crossman: I did not make such a promise. I listed transport among the subjects on which I know there is widespread interest. It remains in the list. I warned the House that Malta seemed to me to have top priority this week, and I felt that I must give time to the Press next week and that the others must take their course. We still have not debated the Mountbatten Report on prisons, and I think that this has a high degree of priority.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to discuss the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on urgent and topical debates, bearing in mind that there is a Motion on the Order Paper dealing with part of the Report which the House has had no opportunity of discussing.

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the problem. I have been thinking it over. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee on Procedure is now also concerned urgently with the propositions about the Finance Bill. I think that the wisest course would probably be to wait and see these and then take the two together, rather than have the time of the House spent on two separate debates. That is my present thought on the subject.
As for the minor subject which the right hon. Gentleman raised, I am still

discussing it through the usual channels. I rather believe that the suspicions that hon. Members had about this proposal of the Select Committee are somewhat abated, and I hope perhaps to be able to persuade people that it is a reasonable proposition from which right hon. and particularly hon. Members will benefit.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he proposes to make any change in today's business?

Mr. Crossman: My right hon. Friend may have observed that there is a Motion on the Order Paper about business today, which has been put down by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now more than six months since the publication of the White Paper on transport and that, in spite of repeated promises from himself on the proposal, we have never had a debate?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there is a demand on both sides of the House in this regard, but I explained that I have to choose the subject, and I thought that I had the consent of the House to my feeling that Malta had to be brought forward this week. I believe that there will be widespread support for the view that we should have the debate on the Press next week.

Mr. Coe: Might I press my right hon. Friend for an early debate on the Government's decision to raise fees for overseas students? Is he aware that there is a great deal of feeling on this side of the House about this question?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware that there is a great deal of feeling on both sides of the House and outside the House also. I gather that the Secretary of State is receiving a delegation in the near future, and I think that we had better await the result of that.

Dame Irene Ward: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain what was in his mind when on the first day on which the Government arranged for a morning sitting to enable hon. Members to get home at a reasonable time the Government put down a Bill which could have run all night? Was it not really a cuckoo decision?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must look to the future not the past. We are asking questions about next week's business.

Mr. Orme: Might I follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) about fees for overseas students? As my right hon. Friend has already acknowledged, there is much feeling outside the House among the universities and among the people generally. Could he not consider having a debate on this important and topical subject at one of the morning sittings?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear that suggestion in mind. I regard the subject as important. It is one which interests both sides of the House.

Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the exchanges that took place on Tuesday night on the Agriculture Bill on the undertaking of the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement to the House about the handling of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland? Will he impress on his right hon. Friend the importance of making a statement next week?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly mention that to my right hon. Friend. I should imagine that he is aware of the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend say when we are to have the long-awaited debate on shipping and shipbuilding, in view of the very grave urgency of the implementation of the Geddes Report and other matters connected therewith?

Mr. Crossman: As I said last week, it is a question not only of debate but of legislation. I hope to make a statement on it shortly.

Sir E. Boyle: With regard to the fees for overseas students, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was genuine disappointment on both sides of the House that this subject could not be raised yesterday on the Consolidated Fund Bill, and that many of us would be ready to take part in a debate on the subject at any morning or afternoon sitting? Also, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about a debate on the Plowden Report? There is some feeling that the

Government are not too eager to have a debate on it, but we think that they should have one.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should make any such imputations. If the right hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this, as I am sure he does, there is, as I have said, always the opportunity of a Supply day.

Dr. David Kerr: As my right hon. Friend has given time for a debate on the Press, and, presumably, the Monopolies Commission's Report on the Press, would he now consider letting us have an urgent debate on the problems of the film industry, which was the subject of another Monopolies Commission Report, about which many of us have grave doubts?

Mr. Crossman: The appetite for debates is voracious; the more one gives, the more is demanded. We had better look at next week's business and be content that we have the debate on the Press next wek.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether this is a point of order or a matter for next week's business. However, when will the Division take place on the Travel Trade Registration Bill?

Mr. Crossman: I do not want to evade the question, but I think that that is a point of order which it is not really in order for me to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might intervene and say to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that I shall deal with that particular question at the appropriate moment

Sir B. Janner: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the grave anxiety expressed on all sides of the House in relation to the treatment of the Jewish community in Russia, and in view of the fact that the Russian Premier is coming here next week, it would be possible to have a debate on this subject now and see whether something cannot be done with regard to that position?

[That this House notes with concern the continuing difficulties confronting Jews in tile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to use its good offices to


secure for them the basic human rights afforded to other Soviet citizens.]

Incidentally, may I—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech at this point.

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the interest in this subject. I think that the Motion has more names of hon. Members attached to it than any other single Motion. I should have thought that that was sufficient for the moment. We have the visit of the Russian Premier next week, and I think that he will take notice of it.

Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion 368 on the subject of the Egyptian aggression and gas war in the Yemen, which stands in the names of about 62 of my hon. Friends? In view of the confirmation that the Prime Minister seemed to give to the House on Tuesday last, and of the need to do something quickly if it is to be effective, will he consider arranging a very early debate?

[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to raise in the United Nations Security Council the threat to peace presented by the United Arab Republic's extension of the Yemen war to Saudi Arabia, and the use of poison gas against the Yemen and Saudi civilians, contrary to the Geneva Protocol, to which Egypt is a signatory.]

Mr. Crossman: I know that there are a number of Motions on this subject. The Prime Minister has made clear that the Government share to the full the feelings of hon. Gentlemen. That is all I can say at the moment. I do not see any prospect of an immediate debate on the subject. Reverting to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the subject of the Middle East—he mentioned it to me—clearly is one of the subjects that we must now consider as becoming urgent.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Has my right hon. Friends' attention been drawn to early-day Motion 333 calling for the ending of legal, social and economic discrimination against women, a subject of great concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House and to at least half the population of the country? Could he find time for an early date on the subject?

[That this House welcomes the importance attached by Her Majesty The Queen to the rôle of women in public and social life when she made her Christmas Day broadcast one hundred years after the first efforts to obtain women's suffrage in this country, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that women's remaining legal disabilities are removed in the present Law Commission Review of legislation, that Government social programmes and policies are directed towards ending social discrimination against women, and that equal pay for women is ensured when approval is given to wage increases under the prices and incomes policy.]

Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have accepted the principle of equal pay. There are certain technical and economic difficulties. Frankly, I see no prospect of a very early debate on the subject.

Sir J. Rodgers: May I ask the Leader of the House if Her Majesty's Government would facilitate the passage through the House of a Private Member's Bill introduced by one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), to safeguard the welfare of the deaf?

Mr. Crossman: The dead? [Laughter.] Necessary as the action may be for us all, I would like to have notice of that question in order to consider the possibilities. I do not think that there is any chance of our giving time for a debate at present.

Mr. John Fraser: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the amending Bill dealing with certain loopholes in the Rent Act (Amendment) Bill? Can he find time for this Measure, or promise Government legislation in the near future upon which it would be possible to graft this Measure, for instance the leasehold reform Measure?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is one point in the Bill particularly interesting to everyone concerned with the working of the Rent Act, and I will certainly make sure that the Minister of Housing consults on this point.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Bearing in mind the horror of poison gas warfare, does the right hon. Gentleman think that his reply


on early-day Motion No. 368 was really adequate? Can we please have a statement from the Government next week in advance of any Middle East debate, because the Prime Minister's reply on this question was quite callously inadequate?

Mr. Crossman: I entirely repudiate the idea that Her Majesty's Government have not rejected this idea with horror. They are deeply disturbed and I am perfectly clear that this view is shared by the whole House. What I was asked to say was whether we would have the debate next week, and I have replied to that. As to the question of the statement, which I had not been asked about before, I will draw that to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. John Wells: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day Motion No. 371, in the name of myself and nearly every hon. Member representing Kent con-stituencies—

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to instruct all county councils who have considerable populations of gipsies and other travellers to provide suitable sites for the accommodation of these people so that they do not move from county to county becoming a burden on the ratepayers of those counties who take an enlightened view of this problem and that sites provided should be small enough so that a few families are accommodated per parish and can be easily supervised and assimilated into rural schools.]

—concerning the problems of gipsy caravan sites and housing? As it is a long time since we have had a debate on the gipsy problem, can we have one in the near future?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a Circular has been issued by the Ministry of Housing to local authorities. This is a subject of considerable social importance, and I will certainly bear it in mind as one which we should debate.

Viscount Lambton: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that any statement made by the Minister of Agriculture about foot-and-mouth disease will be made in this House and not in reply to a Written Question?

Mr. Crossman: The assurance I gave was that I would bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite for a statement and I will do so.

Sir F. Bennett: Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us have felt from the very beginning that a three-hour debate on Malta would be grossly insufficient? Is he aware that developments here, procedurally, and in Malta politically, make this view even stronger and that we shall press strongly for another debate?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of this. It was quite right to have a debate today because it is a matter of the greatest importance for the people of Malta that we should have this debated in a serious way as they listen carefully to what we say. It is of the greatest importance that the right things should be said today from both sides of the House.

Sir C. Taylor: On that point, can the Leader of the House say whether he is prepared to extend the debate on Malta beyond 7 o'clock, because otherwise we shall have only about two hours' debate or less?

Mr. Crossman: We shall have to see how business goes.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to an earlier question, that he cannot find Government time for a discussion on the Plowden Report, indicate the low priority that the Government give to primary education?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have political arguments at business question time.

Mr. Prior: Referring once again to foot-and-mouth disease, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture said in this House, "I shall make a full statement"? If he is not to make a statement to the House, where will he make a statement? Would it not be better if he made it here?

Mr. Crossman: We have an excellent opportunity for such a statement in our morning sittings, and I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the suitability of the morning sittings for such a statement.

Mr. Channon: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the fact that on Monday and Wednesday there is important business to be discussed and it is most unlikely that the House will be able to rise at 9.30 p.m.? Was it not the Government's case, in introducing morning sittings, that the House would get up at that hour?

Mr. Crossman: Each of us must estimate the time which we should take, but I would have thought that on Wednesday and Thursday, if the House shows reasonable despatch, we can expect to have a reasonable bed-time.

Mr. Blaker: With regard to the alleged use of gas in the Yemen and Saudi Arabia, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reason for having a debate about this, or clarifying the Government's position, is that the Prime Minister gave the impression on Tuesday that he was washing his hands of the whole business? Is he aware that this involves a much wider issue than merely the Middle East, and covers the whole world?

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry if that is the impression which hon. Members gained from the Prime Minister. I certainly did not gain it and I entirely repudiate any such meaning in my right hon. Friend's speech.

Sir D. Glover: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will let us have a debate on the procedure of this House, because after one morning sitting it is quite obvious that we have got ourselves into an awful tangle? At present we have a Bill in suspended animation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into detail. He must just ask his question.

Sir D. Glover: Could we have an urgent debate on this matter?

Mr. Crossman: I am well aware that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to put every obstacle in the way of the success of morning sittings, but I am fairly confident that after two or three weeks of alarums and excursions we shall settle down and do a lot of useful business in the mornings which would otherwise be done late at night, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who

always oppose any such idea, will gradually come to take the credit for inventing this system.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Hart, statement.

ST. VINCENT

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission I will make a statement about St. Vincent.
As the House will know my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, invited the Chief Minister of St. Vincent and the Leader of the Opposition to London to discuss the steps necessary to resolve the unfortunate uncertaintities about the electoral position which arose from the closeness of the General Election results and four outstanding election petitions.
After full discussion over the past 10 days, agreement has been reached between Her Majesty's Government and representatives of the Government and representatives of the Opposition party of St. Vincent, that the Secretary of State should appoint a Boundary Commission to delimit 13 constituencies, and a Supervisor of Elections to prepare new electoral rolls and to supervise the next General Election which will be held not later than the end of 1968. Until these elections have been held there will, therefore, be no increase in the size of the present Legislature. On this basis, and subject to the enactment of the West Indies Bill, it was agreed that St. Vincent should become an Associated State not later than the 1st June, 1967.
I should like to pay my sincere tribute to the constructive way in which the representatives from St. Vincent took part in the discussions, and to the spirit of compromise which they showed in arriving at an agreed solution. It was, I believe of very great importance to St. Vincent that every effort should have been made to reach an agreed solution.
I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the document which was signed yesterday afternoon. Since it makes changes in the constitutional and


transitional proposals embodied in the earlier White Paper (Cmnd. 3021), it will he published as a White Paper as soon as possible.

Mr. Wood: Is the hon. Lady aware that her statement that agreement has been reached will be received with satisfaction? May I ask her two questions? First, what will now be done to hasten the solution of the electoral problems still facing the island, and secondly, will that date of 1st June, 1967, be the operative date for Statehood status whether or not these problems are solved?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, it will. I know how pleased the right hon. Gentleman will be that agreement has been reached, and I am grateful to him for his contribution in not pursuing the matter during Tuesday evening's debate, when matters were at a rather critical stage. As for the election petitions, as he knows, four are now before the court and they must take their course. We cannot say when they will be finally decided, but both delegations said that they entirely shared our view that it was most desirable that they should be resolved as quickly as possible. We obviously looked at what might be done to speed up the process, but what was quite clear is that anything which we could do would be regarded as, and would be, an interference by the Executive in the administration of justice. There is, therefore, nothing for it except to let matters take their course, and hope that this will be as speedy as possible.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us at least will regard this solution with dismay, and consider that this is not an entirely fair compromise between the Government and the Opposition in St. Vincent? Is she aware that the decision, which means that the new elections will be postponed until the end of 1968, is unfair on the present Opposition, which really won the last election by having a majority of votes?

Mrs. Hart: I am sorry that my hon. Friend looks on this agreed solution with such dismay. I think that an agreed solution is much more preferable to a disagreed one—that is, a situation in which the British Government might have had to impose a solution. Secondly, on the

discussion which we have had and the proposals which each side made, I assure my hon. Friend that this is an absolutely fair, straight-down-the-middle solution. Of course, the Opposition party would have liked early and fresh general elections, but I am afraid that to agree to that would have meant that we should negate the democratic right of the people of St. Vincent who have elected five members to five of the seats—and their seats are not challenged. Moreover, this would have taken away the rights of those involved in the election petitions. We cannot allow a decision to hold a General Election to detract from people's rights in the courts. This is essentially the problem.

Mr. David Steel: While congratulating the hon. Lady on reaching this settlement, may I ask her whether she is aware that the difficulties of St. Vincent stem largely from the fact that its electoral system is very nearly as undemocratic and unfair as ours? [Interruption.] I am glad that I have the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Since we have avoided this system whenever possible in other Colonies, would she say whether the Commission and supervisor will be empowered to consider the question of an improved electoral system?

Mrs. Hart: The system will be improved by the mere fact that an impartial and neutral Boundary Commission is drawing up new seats. I am happy that our discussions were not complicated by the question of proportional representation.

Mr. John Hall: I thank the hon. Lady for carrying out her promise to let the House know the results of her negotiations as early as possible. We are very appreciative of that.
I should like to ask the hon. Lady two questions. First, apart from the question of the date of the election, on which I am sure there is a lot of disagreement, did the Opposition make any other reservations on which they were later overborne? Secondly, will she ensure in any recommendations she makes to the St. Vincent Government that they do not, for their own sakes, allow the introduction of a Liberal Party?

Mrs. Hart: I should not attempt to intervene in St. Vincent politics to the extent which the hon. Gentleman has suggested. On his first point, many varying proposals were put forward by both sides. It was necessary to arrive at a fair solution and to get it agreed by both sides, if possible. I do not know how well the hon. Gentleman knows the Leader of the Opposition in St. Vincent, but I can assure him that he would not have signed the agreement if he did not feel that he would be able to satisfy his own people in St. Vincent that it was fair.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Lady aware that many of us are delighted that good sense has prevailed and that St. Vincent will not be left on its own when the other Caribbean islands advance towards constitutional changes? Can the hon. Lady say whether the Boundary Commission will consist of individuals from this country or from St. Vincent?

Mrs. Hart: I cannot at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman may know, recent boundary commissions have contained people from other Commonwealth countries. I cannot at the moment say exactly who the best people will be or whether they will be available when they are needed.

MORNING SITTINGS and COUNT OF THE HOUSE (QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to make two statements and then to give a Ruling on the matter of Privilege raised with me yesterday.
First, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) raised a rather small point about whether cleaners might come into the Chamber between the morning sitting and the afternoon sitting. Under the Sessional Order which governs morning sittings, the sitting is suspended at One o'clock, or just before One o'clock if the business peters out. When the sitting is suspended, the Mace remains on the Table. I am of the opinion that it would create a dangerous precedent if we began the practice of allowing strangers to enter the House while the Mace was on the Table.
The second matter was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) about when the vote should be taken on the Motion of the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) for leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule procedure. Yesterday, I referred to the Sessional Order of 14th December which the House carried and which I have to administer. I endeavoured to dispose of one or two misapprehensions in the minds of hon. Members. In my own words, the Sessional Order which the House discussed "involves all kinds of new complications".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 517.]
It is my duty to draw the attention of the House to a point which arises from the decision which the House took on 14th December. The Motion for leave to bring in a Bill relating to travel trade registration moved by the hon. Member for Blyth—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Where is he?

Mr. Speaker: —would, in the normal course, have been put to the House last night immediately before we reached the Adjournment Motion. Owing to the Count of the House, the Adjournment Motion was never reached. In consequence, the Chair will have to put the Question on yesterday's Ten-Minute Rule Bill tonight immediately before the Adjournment Motion is moved by the Government Whip.
The third matter is the important question of Privilege raised with me yesterday by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). He referred to certain events which he claimed occurred when the House was being counted on the night of 31st January.
First, I should say that the hon. Member is quite right in thinking that any misbehaviour in the Lobby, such as the use of offensive expressions or insulting words or threats, although not committed in the actual view of the Chair, may, nevertheless, constitute a contempt of the House, with all the consequences which flow from that.
All that I have to decide now, however, is whether the hon. Member has made out a prima facie case of contempt or breach of Privilege which would justify me in according priority to this matter


over the Orders of the Day. I have now asked the Serjeant at Arms whether any disorder occurred in or near the Chamber that night, and he has reported to me that there were no incidents of an exceptional character and no disorderly behaviour.
I gather that it is not unknown for Whips to use their powers of persuasion in dealing with their fellow Members. I recognise that there may have been some degree of friendly intervention, but I do not think that it constituted any infringement of the rules or practice of the House. If physical violence had been used, then the matter would have had a very different issue, but I understand that such was not the case.
Although the present matter may appear to the hon. Member for Peterborough to affect Privilege, I cannot, therefore, rule that it should be given precedence over the Orders of the Day. In judging whether a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has been made out, I do not, of course, preclude him from raising the matter by other means. My Ruling merely restrains him from obtaining priority for any Motion which he might have desired to put before the House at this time.

Mr. Heath: May I raise a point of order and ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the business on the Order Paper for the rest of the day? The next item after the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am wondering whether we should deal with that point now. I can take it now if the right hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Would it not be more in order for us to raise points on the Rulings which you have given, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: It would be tidier.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the matter which I raised earlier on which you have been good enough to rule? Some of us rather resent the approach of the Leader of the House to this matter. This is not at all a matter of party politics or party divisions. We are sincerely desirous that the proceedings of the House should be properly arranged. Some of us gave warnings about the consequence of morning sittings whatever arrangements

were made for Divisions. You said that a vote would take place at the end of today's business on something which was dealt with yesterday morning. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that this is only the beginning of some of the procedural difficulties which we shall be in—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that nothing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised is a point of order for me, although it is very interesting.

Mr. Turton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not in this difficulty? The travel agency Bill is not on the Order Paper, which means that those hon. Gentlemen who object to that Bill are in the position, reading the Order Paper, that they have no knowledge that the Bill is being taken. Apart from that, with respect to your Ruling, is it not quite specific in the Sessional Order that a Division which is deferred from 12.30 is taken that day and not on any other day? Have we power to overrule that Sessional Order and enable it to be taken on the day after? I would ask you to give consideration to those two facts, and rule that the Bill should not be brought forward without notice tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have given consideration to the points which he has raised. This is an abnormal circumstance. In the ordinary course of events, what would have happened, according to the Sessional Order, is that the Ten-Minute Rule Bill would have been divided on some time early this morning at the end of that day's business.
I have now to decide what has to be done to protect the fact that it was decided that the Ten-Minute Rule Bill should be divided on, and I must ask the House to accept my Ruling on this rather difficult and possibly unique occasion.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you were not in the Chair at the time, I am sure that you do not realise that, near the time when the vote on this Bill would have taken place, the proposer of the Bill was not in the House. It was for that reason that I called—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot argue the merits of what flows from the Sessional Order, which the


House of Commons adopted by a majority on 14th December. I do not question the hon. Gentleman's word. It is quite possible that the mover of a Resolution, Motion or Ten-Minute Rule Bill may not be in his place when, some hours later, a division is taken. All this flows from the Sessional Order. I have just to administer it.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same issue?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, all that I am putting to you, for the record, is this. I am not disputing your Ruling. I am asking that, when this matter is considered, it should be borne in mind that if an hon. Member has a Ten-Minute Rule Bill and lie is not here when it is likely that the Question will be proposed by you on that Bill, it is not reasonable that he should have a second chance to ask the House to support that Bill, or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter that I shall have to consider when the occasion arises.

Sir E. Boyle: Further to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I am sure that none of us wants to make too much of the point, but Erskine May, on page 265, quite specifically says that the Order Pa per gives the agenda of the sitting for the current day. It goes on:
An item which requires notice but is omitted from this paper cannot be taken.
Surely it is a matter for real consideration by the House whether an item not included on the Order Paper may properly be taken.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One quite appreciates that, faced with this awkward situation, you had to decide what you felt was best to be done. May I suggest that the appropriate action to be taken, when a Motion disappears from the Order Paper in this way through a Count, is for the Motion to be put on the Paper restoring it to the Order Paper, as has been done to the Government Motion, though in somewhat controversial circumstances?

Mr. Speaker: This is something which we shall have to look at. As far as Erskine May is concerned, the difficulty is that the Sessional Order of 14th December was carried by the House after the publication of the last edition of Erskine May, and I have to try to marry the two. It is not easy. I would only assure hon. Members that the Chair and its advisers gave great consideration to these issues.

Mr. Heath: On this particular point of order, Mr. Speaker, the House will agree that you are facing almost insuperable difficulties. The point about the Sessional Order is that notice is given that the item is to be taken on that morning, and the House is aware that, if it is challeneged, it will be taken that night, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have an opportunity to be in the House to vote upon it. After last night's incident, no one was aware that it would be taken, because of the new circumstances. Would it be helpful for the House, in view of the fact that you have said that it is a unique occasion and that there will have to be a decision again later, for notice of this item to be given for next Monday, when hon. Gentlemen would be informed and could come to vote if they wished to do so?

Mr. Crossman: On this point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the whole of this unique situation arose because your decision was not carried out, owing to a Count being imposed on the House suddenly and without warning from the back benches opposite against their own side? If we had gone on normally, it would not have happened.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on a difficult point of order. The Chair is not concerned at any stage of this consideration how or why a Count or any difficulty arose. All that it is faced with is the difficulty itself, and how we are to cope with it.

Mr. Maude: The difficulty with which we are faced is this. We recognise that the Sessional Order lays down that, if a Division is called in the morning, it must be held that night. Does the Sessional Order make any provision for it to be held the next day? My impression is that it does not.

Mr. Speaker: That is why the Chair is ruling on it—[Interruption.] Order. A am sure that the House is trying to help the Chair. The Chair is ruling on this because there is no specific provision that I have been able to find in the Sessional Order for what happens to a Motion or a Ten-Minute Rule Bill which was to be taken at the end of the day when that day is broken by the House being counted out.

Mr. Heath: May I return to the original point? In the absence of anything in the Sessional Order, would it not be the normal procedure to do as has been done with the Consolidated Fund Bill and give notice for some future date that the Bill will be restored to the Order Paper and that the vote will be taken just before the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: I should imagine that that would normally happen in the case of Government or Opposition business. Probably it would not have occurred to the hon. Gentleman who had his Ten-Minute Rule Bill. But it seems to me to make sense that we might adopt the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has put forward, and that we invite, in this case, the usual channels, to put on the Order Paper on Monday for Division the Ten-Minute Rule Bill which should have been taken this morning.

Mr. Heath: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for that Ruling.
May I raise a point of order about the next substantive item of business?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) wants to raise a further point first.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On your Ruling about Privilege, Mr. Speaker, naturally the House will accept it. But I think that it is correct to put to you that the basis of your Ruling to some extent runs contrary to the precedent which I quoted to you. The then Speaker accepted "prima facie" as meaning without actual violence being used.

Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Gentleman submitted the case to me, he called my attention to the alleged precedent. He ought not to need assurance that I

have studied the alleged precedent. It by no means militates against what I have ruled.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL (NOTICE OF MOTION)

Mr. Heath: The next item of business, Mr. Speaker, after presentation of Bills, is
That on this House proceeding to the Orders of the Day, the Consolidated Fund Bill be ordered to be read a second time.
I understand that this notice was put on the Order Paper at about ten minutes past Three this morning. I do not wish to go into the circumstances, but this was made necessary by the Count which took place. I merely say to the Leader of the House in passing that in a normal situation the Government would have had a quorum present. That is the whole point about it.
The House passed a Sessional Order on 14th December, to which you have already referred, Mr. Speaker, from which it is quite clear
That on Tuesday, 17th January and for the remainder of the present Session, a notice of a motion, amendment or question which is given after half-past Ten of the clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice given after the rising of the House:
It therefore seems to me that this notice is treated as having been given after the rising of the House. The whole purpose of the House passing the Sessional Order was, I think it is agreed by the Leader of the House, to protect the interests of hon. Members so that they should have a full 24 hours' notice before being confronted by a Motion on the Order Paper which they had to debate. In the present case, that is lacking.
If I may mention a previous case in 1952, Mr. Speaker, there was then no such Sessional Order in existence. Mr. Speaker on that occasion ruled that it was in order for the Government to put down such an Order of the Day, as we did, but he went on to advise the House that even though the Government were entitled to do so, his own view was that because the Bill was a contentious one it would in those circumstances be advisable for the House not to proceed with it.
I believe that in the present case the House has made it absolutely clear that


there should be the full day's notice, and this we have not had. I therefore ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about how it is possible for this Notice of Motion to appear on the Order Paper today and how it is possible for the House to take it.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point—it is one of considerable importance—and for putting it so courteously and succinctly. The right hon. Gentleman has called attention to the change in the form of the Order Paper today, because this is a matter which falls within my responsibility since the Notice Paper is published by the authority of the House under the direction of Mr. Speaker.
So far as the handing in of notices for the Order Paper is concerned, no distinction is drawn between any Member of the House. The same rules govern notices handed in by the Government as by private Members. A notice which is wholly out of order may be withheld from publication on the Notice Paper but if the irregularity is not extreme the notice is printed and reserved for future consideration.
If an objection is taken to a Notice of Motion on the Notice Paper, Mr. Speaker decides as to its regularity; and if the objection is sustained, the notice is amended or withdrawn.
It is my duty, therefore, this afternoon. in the light of these rules—which right hon. and hon. Members can find in Chapter 18 of Erskine May—to comment on the Notice of Motion relating to the Consolidated Fund Bill, standing in the name of the Government Chief Whip, and the first Order of the Day for the Second Reading of that Bill.
Last night, during the four-minute interval after the Count of the House had been claimed and before the House had been counted out, the Government Whips gave instructions to the Table to table the necessary Motion to enable the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken today as the first Order.
That would have been entirely within the rules but for the Sessional Order of 14th December last relating to the tabling of notices, which states that

a notice of a motion…which is given after half-past Ten of the clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice after the rising of the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 611.]
In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's submission, there is, however, an exact precedent for today's situation in the circumstances of 26th November, 1952, after the House had been unexpectedly counted out on the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. A Notice of Motion to revive the Order of Second Reading at the next sitting was accepted and tabled after the rising of the House and the Order for Second Reading of the Bill was printed contingently as the first Order of the Day.
On that occasion, my predecessor in the Chair said that this practice was not without precedent after an unexpected interruption of business, by a Count or by Adjournment for grave disorder or some other cause, but that it might be thought inappropriate in the case of contentious business to proceed with such a Motion. He referred to an earlier Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1912 and, in view of the precedents and Mr. Speaker's guidance on that occasion, the Government of the day decided not to move the Motion on the Order Paper nor to seek to move the Second Reading of the Bill on that day but proceeded instead with other business.
As I understand that the Consolidated Fund Bill, while not, perhaps, in itself contentious, is of great importance from the point of view of Commons financial procedure, the course taken in 1952 might seem to be the right course for me to commend to the House this afternoon.

Dr. David Kerr: Further to the point of order. I respect very much what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I think that in considering your recommendation the House would want to bear in mind that the Sessional Order to which you have referred arose from a recommendation not of the Select Committee on Procedure but of the Services Committee, which in turn made the recommendation not in any sense of amending the procedure of the House but in response to representations concerning the difficulties faced by the Government printers in dealing with these matters after 10.30. [Interruption.] I am asked "Who runs this place?" The


House took that measure on that advice and as a result of those representations. I think that it was entirely right that it should have done so
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in considering what is appropriate as a result of that Sessional Order, and particularly in view of your Ruling that save for that Sessional Order this Motion would have been quite in order on the Paper, these facts should be borne in mind as they are—

Mr. Speaker: Order. When the hon. Member reads carefully my Ruling, he will see that it answers the point which he has raised.

Mr. Crossman: Of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The issue therefore narrows down to the very precise one of whether the precedent of the Conservative Iron and Steel Bill some years ago, which undoubtedly was contentious and controversial business, can be made equivalent to the Consolidated Fund Bill. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that although, of course, it is an extremely important Measure—[Interruption.] The word used here is not "important", but "contentious". The point which I am putting Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]—I should like to have the courtesy of being allowed to put it peacefully—is whether the word "contentious" can be said to apply to a Bill against which it is almost unheard of to have a Division and which is traditionally a Bill on which private Members seek to have redress of grievance.
I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the meaning of your predecessor when he spoke about the Iron and Steel Bill was quite clear. He was saying that when a Government were fighting for a highly controversial Measure, it would not be in order to proceed with it on such an occasion. I would have thought, therefore, that the word "contentious" here could not, or would not, have been used by your predecessor in regard to the Consolidated Fund Bill and, therefore, that it was in order for us to put down the Notice of Motion.

Mr. Speaker: Again, may I say to the Leader of the House that I addressed myself most carefully to the point that he has raised. That was why I said what I did in my Ruling that while it was

not a contentious Bill in exactly the same way as the Iron and Steel Bill, it was a Bill
of great importance from the point of view of Commons financial procedure".
It was on that ground that I was giving the advice which I am giving to the House. Whether the House takes that advice is a matter for the House.

Mr. Crossman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put two points to you. I, too, have studied the passage in question, and should like to comment again on it. Mr. Speaker said that
this practice was not without precedent after an unexpected interruption of business by a Count or an Adjournment.
He then said that if the Bill was contentious it was not in order.
This Motion would retrieve a situation created by an unexpected event. With respect, I suggest that the meaning of the words must apply to controversial legislation, and not to important legislation. If Mr. Speaker meant an important Bill, surely he would have said "important"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has put a fair point, and a very reasonable argument. All I can reiterate is that I had given consideration to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman before I decided to give the advice that I have done to the House.

Mr. John Hall: Surely the point is how best to safeguard the interests of back benchers? Is it not a fact that very few hon. Members would have thought it likely that the Consolidated Fund Bill would have been continued today, and therefore many who might have wished to speak on matters to be raised during the debate on the Bill might not be able to avail themselves of that opportunity because they might have thought that it would be put back to the following week? Should not we prevail on the Leader of the House to accept your reasonable suggestion?

Mr. Webster: The next subject for debate on the Consolidated Fund is contentious, and this is something which I hope the Leader of the House will bear in mind. The next item for discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill concerns some critical remarks by the Estimates Committee with regard to the handling


by the Prime Minister of a subject introduced to the House by the Leader of the House himself. Last night, at the time of the Count, the Leader of the House did not grace us with his presence, and so anything that he says is second-hand. The next item to be debated is one that is critical of the handling of the right of Members of Parliament to gain redress for their constituents. This is a matter of the deepest principle, about which everyone in this House feels very deeply, and it is, therefore, surely contentious.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not debate generalities. He must confine himself to the submission which the Speaker has made to the House.

Mr. Paget: May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to accept the advice of the Chair on this matter? After all, the Government of Malta have postponed the Third Reading of the Bill to remove the visiting forces privileges because they are anxious to hear this debate first before that irrevocable action is taken. I feel confident that, in the mood of the House at the moment, if one insists on going on, as is the Government's right, there will not be any progress because too many people in the House will be too angry about it. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend on this occasion to let us get on with the debate which Malta is so anxiously awaiting.

Mr. Heath: May I, too, suggest to the Leader of the House that he should accept what is the obvious wish of the House, and, moreover, that he should follow all the precedents of his predecessors, not only in 1952, but the earlier precedents, and accept that although the Motion has appeared on the Order Paper, the Government should not move it, but should move on to the next important business, which is the debate on Malta for which we are all waiting?

Mr. Crossmart: It would be easier if the House were unanimous about this, but I am sure that there are many hon. Members on my side of the House who share the view that this is not by any means clear. Mr. Speaker, you have made it clear that this is an extremely important point, and one on which two views can reasonably be put to you. We have only

one precedent to go on, that which Mr. Speaker has given us, a clear precedent. We have been told to look at the precedent as the sole precedent that we have for these events. I have taken your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. What we have to ask ourselves therefore is whether. in the circumstances which happened last night, or early this morning, we are bound by the Ruling of the Speaker on the Iron and Steel Bill in 1952?
I would respectfully remind the House through you, Mr. Speaker, of how the circumstances differ between 1952 and now. This is the subject that we have to discuss, whether the 1952 Ruling applies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. When there is a cleavage of opinion in the House, noise does not help at all.

Mr. Crossman: I am not going to be prevented from speaking by shouts of "Resign" because Mr. Speaker has given advice on the interpretation of a different Ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Speaker has given his Ruling."] Mr. Speaker has said that in his view this is a difficult case on which there can be two points of view, and I am putting the point of view that this is not an exact equivalent to 1952. After all, let us remember what happened. Here we had the Consolidated Fund Bill, a Measure which has never been voted on, and which is in no sense contentious in that way. Here we had a Bill in respect of which we made it clear—

Mr. Kirk: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole of this present exchange is on a point of order.

Mr. Crossman: The point that I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a genuine difference between the circumstances in 1952 and those obtaining now, which would mean that the Ruling would not apply. The difference of circumstance is quite simply this: we were discussing a non-contentious Measure, the Consolidated Fund Bill. Agreement had been reached through the usual channels that the Closure would not be moved. There were only two Tories left at the time. We had made it clear through the usual channels that we would not move the Closure. There were


only two back benchers on the benches oppositc.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are times when the House lets itself down, and it lets itself down when Members shout instead of hearing and replying to the arguments.

Mr. Crossman: I was saying that the circumstances were such that we on this side had made it clear that, because this was not a contentious Bill, and because we respect the right of private Members, the Closure would not be moved. The debate was going on in a satisfactory way when suddenly a member of the Opposition called a Count which ruled out only his own side.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot on this point of order discuss the circumstances of the Count last night. That may perhaps come on a later debate.

Mr. Crossman: All I was trying to point out was that in our view the circumstances in 1952 differ in a marked way from the circumstances now, but I will accept your Ruling. Malta is important, and since it is your Ruling we shall accept it.

BILLS PRESENTED

UNIFORM LAWS ON INTERNATIONAL SALES

Bill to give effect to two Conventions with respect to the international sale of goods; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Douglas Jay; supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Frederick Mulley, Mr. George Darling, and the Attorney General; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

TRADE UNION COMMISSION

Bill to establish a permanent commission to which the Minister of Labour may refer for report and recommendation matters relating to the structure and operation of trade unions; and to deal with mischiefs arising thereout; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Ronald Bell; supported by Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Bernard Braine, Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Stephen Hastings, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Sir Ronald Russell, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, and Mr. Patrick Wall; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 12th May and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

Orders of the Day — MALTA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitlock.]

4.48 p.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): It is clearly right that the House should have a full discussion on the situation in Malta at this moment, for there can he no Member of the House on either side who does not feel deeply concerned. Here is this proud island, with its George Cross—

Sir William Teeling: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I have your guidance? This debate was supposed to start at 3.30 and go on until 7 o'clock. May we be told whether we are to go on later than 7 o'clock? I ask that because many of us would like to speak in this debate.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is not a matter for Mr. Speaker at all.

Mrs. Hart: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say that we should have to see how things went. He will no doubt be observing how things go.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Surely we know now how things have gone; they have gone very slowly. Would it be in order to ask the Leader of the House to be recalled, so that the feeling of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House that there should be adequate time for debate could be met?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Sir W. Teeling: May I repeat my question to the right hon. Gentleman, who has returned? We were told that the debate was to start at 3.30 and go on until 7 p.m. The hon. Lady has now told us that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would see how things were going. It is now ten minutes to Five, and we have only about two hours left, until 7 o'clock.

Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for how long we can go on?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I suggest that we should go on until 8 o'clock.

Mrs. Hart: As I was saying, we have before us a situation in which the island of Malta, with its very deep and close relationship with Britain, with its George Cross, and all its history, is considerably affected by the decisions of the British Government. There are questions to be asked and answered. I shall try to explain the position we have now reached, the reasons behind the actions which the Government have taken, the steps we have taken to consult the Government of Malta, and the measures we have proposed to help Malta to meet its problems. I shall be as brief as I can, for I know that many hon. Members are intensely anxious to take part in the debate and how little time we have.
First, I want to consider the context within which we should form our judgments about the Government's actions, remembering all the time that we are talking about people—the men and the women of Malta who have jobs or who do not have jobs, who have security or do not have security, who earn a decent wage or do not earn a decent wage—and we are talking about people in this country whose long-term interests it is the duty of any Government to serve.
It is a firm decision of this Government that overseas defence expenditure must be reduced as rapidly as possible compatible with our responsibilities and obligations to our allies in the world. Our reductions in Malta do not affect our ability to carry out our commitments for the defence of Malta. I shall say more about this later. Only by cutting defence expenditure, very much of which is spending overseas, can we create a viable and healthy balance of payments; only by cutting defence expenditure can we achieve the budgetary savings to spend more on the social needs of our people—whether for houses, for schools, for hospitals, for social security benefits, and only be cutting defence expenditure can we succeed in diverting more of the real resources of Britain to social needs.
Further, only by cutting defence expenditure can we create a base line for increasing overseas aid, for before we can spend more on helping the developing countries—and they desperately need every penny we can give them—we must have a healthy economy and a healthy balance of payments. Yet the paradox is that in order to achieve this we must reduce the level of our forces overseas, and our military presence is often a major source of employment and prosperity to the very people who need the economic assistance which overseas aid can provide
It is a fundamental dilemma, but we accept our responsibility to do all that we possibly can, consistent with that policy, to minimise the inevitably unpleasant consequences which may face these economies in which our military presence has played a key rôle. I am utterly certain that this policy is right not only for Britain but, in the long term, right for the countries of the Commonwealth who need our help.
That is the context of the problem that we face today—Malta's problem. Understanding it as we did—and as we do—how did we proceed? Did we suddenly and sharply inform the Malta Government of our intentions? Did we fail to consult the Malta Government? Did we ride roughshod over the Malta Government s views? I want to give an outline history of events in order to demonstrate that this was not so. In August of last year my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State initiated consultations with the Malta Government and presented proposals which would, in effect, have reduced our forces in Malta to the levels contemplated in the Defence Review by 1968. He had four days of talks with Maltese Ministers. When he returned he reported to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues the strong representations which had been made to him by the Malta Government, during his discussions, about the economic differences, and in particular unemployment, which they foresaw would be created for them by the reductions we proposed.
In September Dr. Borg Olivier had personal discussions in London with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Those discussions naturally went in depth and detail into the matter. As a result of my noble Friend's report and my right hon. Friend's discussions we looked again

very carefully at the Malta run-down and substantially revised our original proposals. The revisions involved considerable additional cost to ourselves. A major item of the revised proposals was that the departure of our two infantry battalions would be deferred for two years, until 1970. Together with other changes in our proposals this meant preserving 2,000 more jobs for the Maltese and spending £5 million more than our original proposals would have envisaged. Under the revised proposals there would have been a phased withdrawal over a period of four years. At the end of four years we should still be employing roughly 3,000 Maltese people, and spending almost £6 million a year on defence for Malta.
It was these revised proposals, representing a substantial and, for Malta, a very helpful change from the original proposals which my noble Friend took to Malta last August, which formed the basis of further consultations two weeks ago. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary took the new proposals with him when he went to Malta to discuss them with the Malta Government. In talks with the Maltese Government at the time my right hon. Friend stressed how seriously we had considered their representations about the real economic problems that our proposed reduction of forces would involve. He discussed the whole thing with them and when he returned he reported to the Cabinet which, in the light of his consultations with the Malta Government, took its final decision —not an easy one.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman announced these proposals before he had reopened negotiations with the Malta Government, and that he made it quite clear that these proposals were not debatable and were, in fact, a diktat?

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend went to Malta with proposals that represented very substantial changes from the original ones, and which represented the outcome of all the discussions that had taken place between August and January. He went out and discussed further the new proposals that he had brought with him with the Malta Government. [HON. MEMBERS "Answer the question."] All I am saying is that the process of consultation


inevitably, at the end of the day, involves communicating to people what the result of the consultation has been. The point is that consultations went on at the very highest level for a considerable period. As a result of those consultations our decisions were changed and modified, with great benefit to Malta. I do not think that any hon. Member could sustain the argument that, all this having occurred over a period of five months, it did not represent genuine consultation.
I assure the hon. Member that if the Malta Government felt that this revision was not enough to satisfy them it was nevertheless a sincere and genuine effort on our part to do so.

Mr. John Hall: The Minister has not answered my question. I said: is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman announced these new proposals—the reworked proposals—before he had started fresh consultations with the Malta Government, and made it quite clear, before he reopened those consultations, that this was the final offer and that it could not be debated?

Mrs. Hart: The weekend after the consultations, my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary gave a Press conference covering these points. I assure the hon. Member that many points of real substance were discussed between my right hon. Friend and the Malta Government during his visit. I must insist that in the light of all this, the Government believe that consultations with the Malta Government, in accordance with their obligations under the Defence Agreement, have been complete and genuine.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I would not have interrupted, but the hon. Lady has not been completely accurate. I hold in my hand a copy of a Malta newspaper reporting the Secretary of State's arrival at Malta Airport before he had seen the Prime Minister or any Ministers. The headline is:
No room for bargaining, warns Bowden".
The text is:
'I am afraid there is no room for bargaining on any major points', said Mr. Bowden".
That was before he saw the Prime Minister. He told the Press at the airport that he could not bargain about any-

thing. This is resented in Malta, because that is not thought to be consultation. It is thought to be informing them. I would not have pursued this matter, but the hon. Lady gave a different impression.

Mrs. Hart: From what I have said, the House will recognise, as a statement of pure fact, that five months' consultation took place. Original proposals were taken to Malta by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He listened to all that the Malta Government had to say. He came back and put those representations to Ministers here. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had full discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta here in September, as a result of which substantial changes were made in the proposals.
When in January my right hon. Friend went to Malta with the new proposals, there were still consequential matters to be discussed—I will give the hon. Gentleman that—based on the level and pace of the run-down, which, it had then been decided, would be our last possible move. There were a number of consequential matters dealing with the way in which we could help Malta, and we discussed those. Those matters were part of the consultations.
Hon. Members are not being just if they seek to allege that this process, covering such a period and involving changes in what the Government proposed to do, did not represent genuine consultations. We must insist that it did.
I must now turn to another point, or I will be reducing the time for hon. Members to speak. I turn to the question of helping Malta to meet the economic situation which she will face. Throughout our consultations with the Malta Government, we have made it clear that we want to do whatever we can in co-operation with the Government of Malta. There is much that can be done —for example, making real progress on the problem of the dockyard; establishing a development corporation as a matter of urgency, and possibly some improvement in the effective use of the aid we make available under the Financial Agreement.
The creation of a viable independent economy is what Malta wants, and is what we want for her. We have helped, we are helping, and we shall continue to


help her very substantially to do just this through our aid programme. As hon. Members will know, our aid to Malta per head of her population is almost our highest to any country in the world. Let me give an example. We give 1s. 4d. per head to India, with all her poverty and hunger. We give £5 7s. per head to the dependent territories of the Pacific, starved as many of them are of natural resources. To Malta we give £18 per head.
Article 2 of the Financial Agreement provides that a sum not exceeding in total £31·2 million shall be made available for the seven years beginning 1st April, 1967. None of the £1 million available under Article 7 of the Agreement has been drawn, so that this is also available. Assuming an even rate of disbursement over the seven-year period, the annual availability will be £4·6 million or £18·4 million over the run-down period, giving an estimated total availability over the four years of £19·74 million. In the last 10 years Malta has received from the British Government nearly £56 million. This is not ungenerous.
Nevertheless, it had been suggested that to compensate for the run-down we should offer an even higher level of development aid, particularly during the next two years. This may seem an obviously attractive solution, but let us be clear. On the one hand, at present we could give further aid to Malta only by depriving some other nation. That is one factor. The other is that the Malta Government have themselves said that they could not absorb further financial aid quickly enough to counteract the effects of the run-down.
Nevertheless, there are a number of measures which we think could usefully be taken to help Malta achieve an independently viable economy. For instance, we have offered the Malta Government expert assistance in dealing with economic problems arising from the run-down. We are urgently considering the possibility of providing Malta with sources of employment for the Maltese people in the British Armed Services or Civil Service. We have offered to set up a Joint Steering committee or Working Party before the run-down gathers momentum, to see how we could help further. I have already said enough to show that we

completely understand the concern of the Malta Government at the economic impact of the reduction of our Forces, and the need to develop alternative sources of employment.
In a fresh attempt to reach an acceptable outcome from the present difficult situation, Her Majesty's Government have today proposed to Dr. Borg Olivier that we should send out a high-powered team of industrialists to advise on how the industrial phase of Malta's economy could be radically and urgently strengthened, and how new employment could be injected—the mission to report back to both the Malta Government and to us. If, as we hope, the Malta Government feel that this would be a useful step to take—and I hope they will—we would be ready to organise such a mission from here as a matter of great urgency.
We believe that a mission of this sort, coupled with the other measures I have already outlined, will go far to enable Malta to grapple successfully with the problems arising from the run-down. I assure the House that we have done everything that lies within our power to help, consistent with our firm decision to reduce the level of our forces in Malta.
I turn now to the other principal feature of the present tension which has arisen between ourselves and the Malta Government—namely, the assertion by the Malta Government that by the proposed reduction of our forces in Malta we place ourselves in breach of the Defence Agreement.
The Malta Government base themselves on the argument that by these reductions we render ourselves unable to defend Malta in accordance with Article 2 of the Defence Agreement. On the basis of this assertion, the Malta Government have, regrettably, informed us that they regard us as being in forfeit of all our rights and privileges under the Defence Agreement. The Prime Minister of Malta yesterday moved the Second Reading of Amendments to the Visiting Forces Act of 1966; and, indeed, during the past few days several administrative measures have been put in hand by the Malta Government which would make the position of our forces in Malta virtually untenable if they continued.
The Malta Government have sent to us an aide memoire informing us of


their decision, and calling on us forthwith to take the necessary steps to cease making use of the rights, privileges and facilities afforded to us in terms of the Visiting Forces Act.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be dealing with these aspects of the problem in more detail later in the debate, as they are primarily his concern.
I must make it quite clear to the House—as it has already been made clear to the Malta Government—that Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the Malta Government's assertion that they are in breach of the Defence Agreement. That Agreement has a term of 10 years, and, in the absence of a fundamental breach by either party, it cannot lawfully be terminated before the end of that time except by mutual agreement. I must emphasise that under the Defence Agreement Britain did not enter into any commitment to maintain a minimum number of troops in Malta, as the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—who has explained why he cannot be in his place today—rightly pointed out the other day. I am glad that he did so, for he speaks with the authority of having himself negotiated the Agreement.
We are entirely and completely satisfied that the proposed run-down will not place Malta at risk, or change in any way our ability and determination to honour our obligations under the Agreement for the defence of Malta. We are satisfied in this regard after a full and complete professional appraisal of any possible military threat to Malta. My right hon. Friend, when he was in Malta, offered to send out a high-ranking Service officer to explain further the military considerations which we have taken into account so that the Malta Government could fully understand our capabilities to meet our obligations. This offer has not so far been taken up.
Her Majesty's Government are certain and confident that we have discharged all our obligations under the Defence Agreement and cannot be held to be in breach of it both in regard to consultations and the defence of Malta.
Finally, I turn to the position at this moment. It is totally understandable—

I am sure we all understand this—that feeling in Malta should be running high and that public reaction on all sides should be as strong as it is. We would expect nothing else, knowing, as we do, the courage and pride of the people of Malta. But they must recognise—and I hope that they will—the direction in which they are moving. As we made clear in the Defence White Paper, we shall not seek to maintain a base or defence facilities of any kind in any independent country against its wishes. Nor, indeed, could we do so.
If impossible demands are made on us and conditions created in which our Forces just cannot operate effectively, the consequences of our total withdrawal for Malta, in terms of deterring investment and undermining international confidence and—even more important—much more severe unemployment, would appear to be extremely serious. This is, however, and must be, a matter for the Malta Government in the last resort to decide. Of course, it is their right to decide. We for our part would regard the sheer inevitability of the consequences of total withdrawal in circumstances in which the Malta Government made it impossible for us to stay as tragic and unnecessary.
It is our view that the Maltese economy is rather more resilient than the Maltese people at the moment believe it to be. For example, the General Workers' Union of Malta produced a paper following the proposals towards the end of last year, and one sees in that paper that the number of jobs in Malta has more than doubled in the last six years. It is a pretty resilient economy with a fair rate of growth that achieves that result. The problem, of course, is that the population of Malta grows as rapidly, or almost as rapidly, as the number of jobs.
But, in the not-too-distant future, with our aid, with an increased rate of private investment and with, we hope, the assistance of the Mission we have proposed to offer guidance—I hope very much that the Malta Government will accept that proposal—Malta's prospects are much better than has been suggested. We want to help Malta to achieve the economic development and prosperity of which she is capable. The last thing we want is that unemployment should be on the disastrous scale which would follow


our complete withdrawal. I cannot believe that the Malta Government can wish or intend by hasty action now to put all this at risk.

Sir W. Teeling: Earlier, the hon. Lady referred to something that was to be done to develop and help the dockyard. If we are to discuss that during the debate, can she give us a few more details about what she meant by that?

Mrs. Hart: What I said was that one of the possibilities for Malta was the development of the dockyard, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the legal difficulties that have beset the dockyard and of some of the other problems involved. But this is within the competence of the Malta Government rather than our own. However, there are possibilities there and clearly it is right to mention them because they cast a slightly more optimistic light on the picture that is being painted at the moment.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The hon. Lady has referred to possible further economic advice and assistance. She has mentioned the proposed business Mission. That is certainly worth considering. Will this further assistance be limited merely to giving advice? If the Mission gives certain advice, will it be possible to hope for further Government assistance, if that should be necessary to accomplish the Mission's aims and advice?

Mrs. Hart: I am afraid that I cannot possibly anticipate what would happen. Clearly, the Mission would report to the British Government and to the Malta Government. It would do this in good time, before the actual beginning of the rundown, of course. There would be time to consider what it said. It would not be wise for me to attempt to anticipate what the Mission's report would be. We have proposed the Mission to Dr. Borg Olivier but we do not yet know whether he will accept it.

Mr. Thorpe: Is it not the case that reports have come through that the Malta Government have decided to reject the Mission?

Mrs. Hart: My latest information—at about 4.30 p.m. today—was that a message had been delivered from the Malta Government but certainly I have received

no communication of any such reaction. We hope that, even at this late hour, the Malta Government—and I refer again to the difficulties that would result from a total withdrawal following a certain course of action by the Malta Government—will not insist on such a course of action. It would be catastrophic for Malta and bring bitterness and tragedy into the long period of 150 years of friendship and co-operation between our two peoples.
Because it is necessary and because it is right, we in Britain must cut defence expenditure in the next four years, especially wherever it is not essential. We know what this involves for Malta. We have done and we shall do everything within our power to help. We have gone to our limits to reach a compromise. The trouble, I think, lies not so much with us as with the world in which, all too often, economies depend upon defence arrangements and armaments, a world which we all seek to change but which changes only very slowly.
But I hope that the Maltese people will also recognise this very great dilemma that faces any Government who make a decision of this kind, which they believe to be the correct decision and the only possible decision that could be taken. I hope that we shall not have the real tragedy of history that would result if the Maltese people, in their strong feelings about this, were to deny us totally the friendship and capacity to help them that we want to maintain. That would be a real tragedy, and on that at least I think that the whole House will agree.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: This is a very serious position. We have a very serious position. We have a situation in which the Government of Malta are accusing the British Government of breach of faith, threatening to expel our forces from Malta and, in fact, taking steps in that direction while the British Government say, "If you do that, in effect that will be the end of aid from us".

Mrs. Hart: I did not say that.

Mr. Maudling: It was said earlier.

Mrs. Hart: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. He has completely got


the wrong point. If the Malta Government continue the administrative actions that they have embarked upon this week, and if they continue the remaining stages of that course of action in Parliament concerning the Visiting Forces Act, the position of our forces in Malta would be untenable and we should have to withdraw. But not for one moment would I suggest that we would withdraw aid.

Mr. Maudling: I agree that the hon. Lady did not say that, but it has been said by the Government on many occasions. In face of this situation, her speech was totally and pathetically inadequate. She demonstrated that the Government have no understanding whatever of the problems facing the people of Malta, the feelings of the people of Malta, and the real dangers for our national conscience that arise from the situation.
The hon. Lady talked about the need for economy in our overseas expenditure, quite rightly. But she said that the need for this was in order to expand the social services here, and that will ring a little odd in Maltese ears, if there is an unemployment rate of 15 or 16 per cent. in Malta. The hon. Lady talked of expanding overseas aid and that is important, I agree. But it is not much help to talk of expansion when cutting back on what Malta really needs for its economy. This shows a total misunderstanding of the situation. Our purpose is to try to persuade the Government that they are set on a wrong course. We believe that the feeling is shared on both sides of the House, and goes beyond one party, that the Government's present course is wrong.
This is why we decided not to divide the House on party lines this evening. We hope that the Government will listen to the voice of the House of Commons as we think it will be expressed today. However, particularly after the hon. Lady's speech, if the Government remain adamant to argument and deaf to entreaty, we shall have to seek another occasion to put down a Motion of censure on them, if they will not listen to what I believe will be the earnest plea of the House of Commons.
It is surely a fantastic situation between us and the people of Malta, with the sort

of words being bandied about, the sort of actions being taken in Malta and the Press statements generally. The war was 20 years ago and more. It is a long time in the life of an individual, but a short time in the life of a nation. We should all regard it as a tragedy that this kind of situation could arise between Malta and Britain, and we ought to be trying, at the highest level and with the greatest effort, to find a solution. It is now the responsibility of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Prime Minister of Malta, to re-open this matter and see whether some solution cannot be found to meet the legitimate needs of Malta as well as those of the British taxpayer.
I do not and cannot believe that the present situation is satisfactory. The Government's policy is wrong on a number of points—first, because there is substance in the charge, we believe, of a breach of faith on consultation and the maintenance of the level of forces; second, because the level of unemployment in prospect in Malta, to which the hon. Lady did not refer, is wholly unacceptable; third, because we believe that there is a definite loss on the defence side; fourth, because we do not accept that the economies put forward as the sole justification for this measure are as real or as large as is claimed and that, even if they were, they would not justify a breach of faith with the people of Malta. I will elaborate on those four points.
First, the breach of faith. There is a clear obligation to consult before making any substantial change in the level of forces maintained by Britain in Malta. I was not impressed by the hon. Lady's defence in this matter. She referred to the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary and a subsequent visit by the Secretary of State. This is a very old tactic—to go to people and put forward some preposterous suggestions and then, when one makes them slightly less preposterous, to say, "How nice we have been to them." What matters is not what one suggested in the first place but what one is suggesting at the moment.
The point is that when the Secretary of State—I am sorry he cannot be here today; we know the reason and wish him well in his recovery of health—went to Malta and said on arrival that there was no scope for negotiation on any major


matter in this situation, he did immense damage to Britain's cause and put backs up throughout Malta. It was a great mistake. I cannot see how the process of the two Ministerial visits and the way in which they have been handled can be described as proper consultation.
The second point is the maintenance of the level of British Forces. We certainly accept that there was no written guarantee about maintaining a particular level. Nor was there any oral undertaking that a certain level would be maintained after the current rundown, which finishes in the early months of this year. However, it is clear—hon. Friends of mine who were in those negotiations have confirmed this for me—that there was an understanding on both sides that, after the expiry of the current rundown, there would be the maintenance of a substantial British military presence in Malta.
Of course, the calculation of the aid to be given the £50 million over 10 years—must have been based on some assumption about the level of forces to be maintained in Malta. Otherwise, one could not have calculated what Malta needed in aid unless there were some assumption on both sides about the amount of defence spending.
Therefore, there is substance in the argument of the Malta Government that there has been a definite letting down of Malta by the current British Government and that there was a clear understanding on both sides that, as part of the package deal in 1964, involving the aid figure and other arrangements, we would continue to maintain a substantial level of forces. The departure from this has led to the present situation.
The third point is the level of unemployment. We have been given figures, which have not been challenged today, that the effect of this latest proposal—even the revised proposal, which is supposed to be such a concession to Malta—would be unemployment rising in the next few years to 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. of the male population of the island. I understand that these are the official calculations of the Malta Government. If they are wrong, I hope that the Secretary of State, in replying to the debate, will show why they are wrong and not merely assert that they are wrong. This is a very large figure indeed and would be totally unacceptable in this country.
Surely it is a matter of concern to this country. The hon. Lady talks about aid to oversea countries—we recognise her great sincerity—and, rightly, of Britain's responsibility in these matters. But how can one talk of Britain's responsibility to the developing countries, if at the same time Britain is creating unemployment of 15 per cent. or more in a country with which she has been linked for so many years, in such an intimate way?
The hon. Lady referred again to the development of the Maltese economy, of tourism and so on. This is true. It is clear that Malta is developing as a tourist centre and this is important. So rapid is the development of tourism at the moment that there is a shortage of craftsmen in the building industry. But tourism will not provide employment for the large number of male employees who will be discharged in the next few years as a result of this Service rundown.
It should also be remembered that tourism will not expand against a background of civil disorder and discontent in the island. The Government must face this. If they will not make some move in the direction of Malta, if they persist in these proposals, there will be a background of discontent, disaffection and disagreement, against which we cannot possibly hope to expand a healthy and flourishing tourist industry.
As for the other proposals, it is a good thing to develop industry in Malta and we are glad to hear of the proposal to send an industrial mission. I am not sure what this will add. There has been for a long while an Industrial Development Board for Malta, headed first, I think, by Sir George Dowty and now by Sir Saddler Foster, a man whose great experience in this matter we all recognise. I do not see what the new mission will add to the existing machinery.
This producing of a mission at a point of crisis is rather reminiscent of the tactics adopted before by this Government in similar difficult situations. If this mission goes—I hope it will—and reports with ideas and suggestions, it will be many a year before any factories are on the ground as a result, employing male Maltese workers. The time scale is completely out.
The fourth point I wish to elaborate is the question of defence. The hon. Lady


referred to this and I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with it seriously. Can he assure the House that, in these circumstances, we are losing nothing of importance to the defence of Britain or N.A.T.O., that having an unfriendly population in Malta, unwilling to see British forces there, makes no difference to British defence strategy in the Mediterranean or the strategy of N.A.T.O.? If he can, we shall be glad. If he cannot, perhaps he will explain why these circumstances will not arise. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about the attitude of N.A.T.O. to this situation and what advice, if any, has been received from our N.A.T.O. friends.
Apart from the question of any immediate strategic threat, the Malta base has two important uses. The first is communications to other areas in the Mediterranean where we have defence responsibilities or defence contingencies to meet. The second is its importance for training, which I believe can be carried out extremely well from Malta and for which other provision probably more costly, will have to be made elsewhere if our forces are withdrawn from the island. On those points the Government's policy seems unjustifiable.
The reason given by the Government to justify it is the saving that they are making in defence expenditure. I wish to examine this briefly to see what substance there is in the suggestion. I hope that the Government will not put forward the argument that the Opposition is always in favour of economy in general but is never in favour of economy in particular.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): That is true.

Mr. Maudling: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would fall into that trap. However good one's intentions, that is no excuse for making foolish decisions.

Mr. Healey: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that every measure taken by the present Government to lop hundreds of millions of pounds off the plans of the previous Conservative Government has been opposed by Her Majesty's Opposition in this House.

Mr. Maudling: Only when they have been foolish, like this one.
What is the saving to be achieved? There are two aspects of the saving which must be considered; first, the saving to the British defence budget and, secondly, the saving to the sterling area balance of payments. I would like to know more about both of these. We are told—I believe that this was made clear in the Secretary of State's recent statement—that the saving annually will be about £6 million. This means that £6 million less will be spent on the defence budget. It may be said that those units which will be taken back to Britain will be disbanded, but that is totally irrelevant. The fact that any of the units will be disbanded is irrelevant. The issue is this: given the level of forces the Government intend to maintain, what would be the additional cost of maintaining a proportion of those forces in Malta rather than in the United Kingdom?
I would like a clear statement to show why, to keep them in Malta, is more expensive than keeping them in Britain. I can see that in terms of transport costs the expense is much higher. On the other hand, costs and prices generally in Malta are substantially lower than they are in this country and there are in Malta facilities available—barracks, houses and so on—which I believe are not fully adequately available in Britain.
Then the question of training. I want the Secretary of State to make it clear just how, in his calculations he has offset, against the cost of maintaining people across the air link in Malta, the saving in terms of lower prices there, the availability of excellent accommodation, but also the availability of training facilities. I shall be surprised if, on any careful calculation, economies can be shown on that basis to be anything like what his hon. Friend put forward.
I come to the subject of the sterling area balance of payments, about which I asked the Secretary of State, when he made his statement at Question Time the other day, a question to which I did not receive an answer. There can be no saving to the sterling area balance of payments unless either the sterling area as a whole sells more abroad or imports less from outside the sterling area. I do not believe that these measures will effect a saving of any substantial size on either point. I do not believe that they will increase the exports of the sterling area


or decrease its imports. I want to know how the Secretary of State can calculate that there will be a saving to the total import bill of the sterling area by the movement of these units from Malta to the United Kingdom.
My hon. and right hon. Friends, therefore, say that the argument put forward by the Government is only the argument of economy; and we are far from convinced that the economies that they have suggested are justified, either in terms of the total defence budget or in terms of the burden on the balance of payments of the sterling area as a whole and, therefore, on the position of sterling.
We say frankly that even if these figures could be justified, can they really weigh in the balance against the loss of British position, against charges of lack of faith and against 15 per cent. male unemployment in Malta? Even if these figures could be, justified—and I do not believe that they could—can they really weigh in the balance against everything that is at stake at the present time for Britain's relations with Malta?
I implore the Government to think again. It is not too late for them to do so. As I said at the outset, we do not intend to divide the House today because we wish to allow the Government time in which to think again; and we hope that they will do so.
We agree that it is right to try to develop industry in Malta. The mission can go ahead and can help the Industrial Development Board and even tell the Maltese themselves that their own bureaucracy often stands in the way of setting up new industries. The fault never lies on one side alone, and it is important that bureaucracy should be removed and interference cut out so that industrial development can go ahead, perhaps with the sort of I.D.C. procedure that we have in this country.
It is right that all these things should be done in time, but time is of the essence. The run-down as planned will impose on Malta sacrifices greater than we can justifiably ask the people of Malta to bear. Against that background, I once again implore the Government to think again, to reopen discussions, to settle this tragic situation and to stop it developing into a real catastrophe.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I ventured the other day to hope that this issue would not become a conventional inter-party quarrel, because there are friends of Malta and hon. Members who are devoted to the interests of the people of Malta on both sides of the House. I was, therefore, glad to hear the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) give the assurance that, on this occasion at any rate, the Opposition does not intend to divide the House.
Although I agreed with a good deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I regretted that he opened his speech on a militant note and with almost a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Minister of State by saying that her speech was "totally and pathetically inadequate." [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] I am expressing my personal opinion. My hon. Friend was, of course, limited by her Treasury-dictated brief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but I was at least grateful to her—and I mean this sincerely and not ironically—for the sympathetic and understanding tone and words that she employed. My hon. Friend understands the difficulties that this situation means for the people of Malta and I believe that she and Her Majesty's Government are in an appallingly difficult dilemma in trying to do two things at once.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Barnet that this situation has not been handled perfectly either by Her Majesty's Government or by the Malta Government. However, I sincerely hope that something will come out of the offer by Her Majesty's Government to set up a high-powered industrial Mission, as announced by my hon. Friend. She said that she did not yet know what the answer from the Malta Government would be to that offer. I can tell her because I happen to know. It is not exactly the same answer as was suggested by the Leader of the Liberal Party. The answer is neither an unqualified rejection nor an unqualified acceptance. It is that the presence of this mission will be acceptable to Malta —but only if, while it is there investigating the situation, the situation will be frozen, as it were, and the sackings will not start.
The sackings or discharges are not due to start until April. If the mission can be assembled and can proceed there quickly and can report quickly, so that some effective consequences of its report are visible, then I believe that it will be acceptable to the Government of Malta. As the right hon. Member for Barnet said, it takes time to build factories and get other industrial projects started. However, I hope very much that what I believe to be a not unreasonable condition on the part of the Malta Government, in the present overheated atmosphere, will be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government; and perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm this when he replies to the debate.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I appreciate what the hon. Member is telling the House, but it is not unusual for a private Member to transmit to the House what the Minister responsible ought to know? [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) keep quiet for a moment? Surely if a message came from Malta the hon. Lady should have read it?

Mr. Driberg: It may be unusual, but there is a perfectly simple explanation. My hon. Friend was sitting on the Front Bench waiting to speak throughout the long discussion on procedure. I was called out by a green card, to the Central Lobby, where I was given this information by a person authorised to give it—that is to say, the High Commissioner for Malta. I hope that satisfies the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). I am sorry that he has made me waste another minute or so because I do not want to give way too much to interruptions—not that I am ever reluctant to do so, but they tend to prolong speeches, as we all know.
I was one of five hon. Members who spent the last weekend in Malta in intensive discussions with many representative people. Although there are some differences of emphasis between some hon. Members who were on that delegation, I think I can say that we found complete unanimity on this issue among those we met in Malta. The consternation aroused by my right hon. Friend's statement on Tuesday last week was felt universally—not only by the Maltese, but also by all

the senior British officials and Service chiefs with whom we talked. I should perhaps say in parenthesis that I do not think they were upset about it for any purely selfish reasons—because they liked being in that climate, or anything like that—but because they know and love the people of Malta and they know from personal observation how devastating the consequences of this decision can be.
I make only one distinction here. Whereas at the official level we met intense bitterness, not directed against us but against the Government, the ordinary people we met—the man in the street or in the café and the housewives with whom we had occasion to talk—felt extremely hurt, shocked and puzzled. We had ample evidence of their abiding affection for Britain, which is not mere cupboard love. There is, after all, a bond between those who have been through the fire together. I hope that we shall find it possible to retain that affection.
Let me deal, briefly—for we must all be brief—with the obvious and rather superficial charge, which I am glad my hon. Friend did not make, that some of us are always pressing for cuts in defence costs and yet when the Government propose a cut of £6 million a year we grumble about it. We are not being inconsistent in saying this. Some cuts are foreshadowed east of Suez. We welcome them and want many more, but the cost of defence in Malta is trivial in relation to the whole defence budget or in relation to the cost of the Rhine Army. Incidentally, cutting £6 million a year off the cost of the Rhine Army would not wreck the economy of Western Germany. We support all cuts in defence spending, including defence spending in Malta, and the Maltese themselves know that this must happen; but we say that the cuts should be applied and phased, or if necessary re-phased, so that they do the least damage to the Maltese economy and the welfare of the people of Malta.
I think my hon. Friend showed some tendency, as some people do, to suggest that wherever we cut costs overseas it is bound to cause some hardship. This may be so, but Malta is really a unique case. I suppose that Singapore is perhaps the nearest parallel in a way, but there is no other former colonial territory whose economy has been so intensely geared for


so long to our defence needs as that of Malta. Now that we no longer need Malta ourselves for defence purposes, at least we should take our departure decently and in order.
There is an analogy here in one respect —I emphasise in one respect only—with the former Belgian Congo. Many of us have been critical of the Belgians because, having ruled the Congo for many years—often most oppressively—they got out almost overnight leaving their colonial subjects totally unequipped educationally for self-government. The Maltese are not ill-equipped educationally—they are an educated nation—but they are ill-equipped economically, in our absence, for viable independence.
We have liquidated the British Empire—as we on this side of the House believe, rightly but it is as irresponsible to abandon a territory suddenly and so cause great hardship as it would be archaic to try to stay there for too long. This hardship, as we have heard already, will be very real. The Government promise technical aid and advice but it is impossible in the next two or three years to build up the industries and create the jobs to absorb unemployment which, as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, may reach a level of 15 per cent. to 18 per cent. That is equivalent to at least 3 million in this country, or possibly more, a level that would be unacceptable to everybody.
My colleagues and I were greatly impressed by our talk with the General Secretary of the General Workers' Union and other representatives of that union and by the careful and detailed statistics that they had prepared. These are moderate and level-headed men, but they cannot view calmly a situation in which about a quarter of their membership will be out of work, and they represent about 72 per cent, of the organised workers in the island. Incidentally, as hon. Members will know, the unemployment benefit is extremely low. It is 9s. a day for a married man however many children he has—and Maltese families tend to run well towards a dozen—and 6s. a day for an unmarried man.
It may be said—I think the right hon. Member for Barnet was hinting at this towards the end of his speech—that the Government of Malta should itself have

been more vigorous in planning economic development and more diverse industry. As a Socialist, I cannot help wishing that the dynamic present Leader of the Opposition in Malta, Mr. Mintoff, had been in charge during these years, but I do not want to indulge in recriminations about Malta's internal affairs at this serious moment and the difficulties—not least, in finding external markets for exports—are indeed formidable for any Government in Malta.
Tourism, as has been said, is the one industry that has been advancing fairly rapidly, but again I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that tourism cannot possibly absorb all the redundant workers even if all the older ones could adapt themselves to hotel work, and—another important point—facilities for retraining are nil.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Would my hon. Friend agree that the possibilities of tourism have not been tapped in relation to other European countries and that jointly this Government might possibly give aid to Malta in expanding tourism? Would he also agree that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) missed the point about peripheral industries which might be attached to tourism?

Mr. Driberg: Anything that can be done to attract tourism from other parts of Europe—and of course Italy is very near—would be extremely welcome. One difficulty is that this very crisis is having an adverse effect already on tourism. Potential visitors are telephoning and asking, "Is it safe to come?", because they fear that there may be disturbances.
A re-phasing of this exercise would cost a little more. It would diminish, though I think not too significantly, the saving of £6 million. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to tell us how much more it would cost if what is called the "hump" were reversed, if, instead of the hump falling in the first and second years—that is when the heaviest incidence of this hardship will be—it were levelled out a little and were to fall in the second and third years or in the third and fourth years of the four-year period. I do not know if my right hon. Friend can tell us how much it would cost. Even with


our present economic difficulties, the difference between our resources and those of Malta is so enormous that we can surely afford one more gesture of friendship.
Nor is there any balance of payments element in this problem. It may be argued that sterling is convertible in Malta, but I understand that steps have been taken by the Malta Government to restrict convertibility as it is restricted here.
There is a disposition in some quarters to say that, when the four years are up, our moral obligation to Malta will have been fully discharged. If there are two friends with a mutual moral obligation, or one friend who has a moral obligation to another, it is not particularly gracious for either of them to say unilaterally, "There! I have discharged my moral obligation to you". One cannot quantify moral obligations or assume that life and death service freely rendered has ever been adequately requited. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently in an entirely different context, quoting Wordsworth:
… high Heaven rejects the Iore
Of nicely-calculated less or more.
I appreciate that the Chancellor cannot think in those terms, but possibly the Commonwealth Secretary ought to be able to.
This brings me to my last point, the point about consultation. This is of much less concrete importance than the basic economic issue, but it is psychologically of considerable importance. Her Majesty's Government have a legal case. There were the vague words in the Defence Review, followed by a telegram from the Prime Minister which gave no indication of impending cuts of this severity. There was the visit of my noble friend Lord Beswick last August. Apparently he did not really go there to consult in the ordinary sense of the word. He went to present a set of decisions so startlingly harsh that they were quite unacceptable.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded us, note was taken of this sharp reaction and the Government agreed to extend the rundown from two to four years—a welcome concession so far as it goes, but still ruinous to the Maltese economy. We must remember

that Article VI of the Defence Agreement promises consultation
when major changes in the British forces … which might have significant effects on the defence or economy of Malta are contemplated"—
contemplated, not when they have been decided already.
I must agree also, I am afraid, with the right hon. Member for Barnet and the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in thinking that it was a little unfortunate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs should have allowed himself to be caught by the Press at the airport on arrival—this is so easy to do, as we all know—and to say that there could be no bargaining on major points. I am sorry to have to say this in my right hon. Friend's absence, but this caused deep offence to the Malta Government. Genuine consultation, after all, usually involves some bargaining. We have always distinguished between consulting and merely informing.
One of the tasks of statesmanship and diplomacy is precisely to be able to put oneself in the other man's place and to identify oneself imaginatively with him in his hopes and his fears. It is a general practice in negotiating to ask or to offer, at first, something much more or less than one realistically expects to end up with. To the Maltese, it must seem that Lord Beswick was offering them the death by 1,000 cuts and that the Commonwealth Secretary then came along and said, "We are being fantastically generous. We offer you death by 500 cuts". I hope that is not unfair.
As I say, the British Government have got a case. No doubt they argue that the change of plan between the two Ministerial visits and the Prime Ministerial discussions, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention but of which my hon. Friend the Minister of State reminded us—last September, I think they were—did cumulatively represent a kind of consultation, or at least a taking cognisance of the other party's views. But it is surely time that both Governments stopped arguing legalistically and got down to the business of discovering how to cushion this blow to the unfortunate people of these small islands so that, when we withdraw, they will cherish our memory and will say,


"Nothing in their Empire became them like the leaving it."

5.56 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) on his speech, with very every sentence of which, except one, I am in the fullest agreement. He is on the Left of his party. I believe that I am well on the Right of mine. However, the remarkable unanimity in our attitude at the end of our weekend's visit to Malta should, I believe, mean that the whole spectrum of thought in the House is covered.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that the speech of the Minister of State this afternoon was extremely disappointing. It will be considered anxiously by the people of Malta. They are getting nothing out of it at the end. The hon. Lady has to be the foster-mother of a baby which was born in the Treasury, smuggled to the Ministry of Defence, and left screaming on her doorstep. We have sympathy with her in her predicament in reading out the awkward brief, which she must have hated doing.
I shall make a short but tedious speech, because I want to get some figures down in HANSARD so that they can be discussed on a future occasion. I want to discuss what the real savings are by the new plans which the Government have announced; also, what will be the effect on the employment position and on industrial life in Malta.
First, the savings. When considering savings in defence expenditure covering an overseas base, the savings would be, first, in direct wages and payments to the nationals of that base—in this case, the Maltese. Next, there must be the savings in the difference between the cost of keeping British Service men and their families in England rather than in Malta, including travelling and the welfare services. Lastly, there are any savings in the maintenance of buildings and equipment in Malta. However, since I believe that we shall retain virtually all the buildings and facilities which we now hold in Malta. I do not think that saving comes into the picture at this stage while we are retaining a base in Malta.
We come first, therefore, to the direct savings in wages paid to the Maltese. My

calculations are based on the figures which, I believe, were agreed between the Malta Government and the British High Commissioner and Service chiefs in Malta. The savings in direct wages in each year will be as follows: year 1967–68, £730,000; year 1968–69, £1,100,000; year 1969–70, £300,000; year 1970–71, £330,000.
Those figures underline the point made by the hon. Member for Barking, that the greatest number of sackings in Malta comes in the first two years. Nearly 2 million are sacked in the first two years, starting in April, compared with 600,000 —[HON. MEMBERS: "What? "] I am sorry. I should have spoken of savings in wages paid to Maltese workers. I have the figures for the number of workers themselves, but I do not think it worth putting them down as well.
The aggregate of these savings in wages will total over the four years £7,120,000, a slightly higher figure than that given by the Secretary of State for Defence, and the maximum annual saving will be £2,500,000. However, from these figures of total savings in the balance sheet we have to deduct the payments which will be made in gratuities and redundancy payments to the dismissed Maltese workers. I believe that this total comes to the staggering figure of £3 million. The reason is that most of the civilians working for the Services are long-term employees. There have been no civilians recruited to help the Services during the past five or six years.
Now, the next saving to the Government. It has been said that it costs £300,000 a year less to keep a battalion in the United Kingdom than it does overseas. Assuming that a battalion has 800 men, and assuming, luckily, that one can relate the returning Service men of different arms to this country, one can establish that the savings in drawing these men back to the United Kingdom will be £1 million over four years.
Next—I want the right hon. Gentleman to think about this seriously because it is one of the keys to the way out of his difficulties—there is the Royal Malta Artillery. I understand that this unit has 720 men costing £100,000 a year to maintain in Malta. It is suggested that it should be disbanded in 1968, thus throwing those 720 men on to the labour


market in Malta. I urge that the unit be retained until the end of rundown period, 1970 or later, the Royal Malta Artillery being left in Malta and one of the British battalions being brought back home. This will make a saving, but I have not included it in my calculations.
I come now to another important cost to the Ministry of Defence, the cost of rehousing in this country the 1,600 families who will be brought back from Malta during the next four years. I understand from a Written Answer by the Under-Secretary of State to a Question of mine that at present officers of the Ministry of Defence are driving about the country with cheque books buying up to 3,300 houses in which to accommodate returning Service men, and they are also making ready caravans and mobile houses in case they cannot buy and furnish this alternative accommodation in time. At £4,000 a house, the rehousing of these Service men will cost £6,400,000 during the next four years.
Thus, in the balance sheet there will be the Minister's savings of £7,120,000 in wages and £1 million in cost savings because Service men are over here. That is a total of £8,120,000. From this must be deducted—in fact, it overtops mere deduction—the redundancy payments of £3 million and the rehousing cost of £6,400,000, giving a total of £9,400,000, proving that this dramatic defence saving plan will, in fact, cost the Government £1 million more in the next four years than if things remain as they are.

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is mixing up an annual saving in the figures which he presents—which I do not endorse—with a once-for-all capital cost. If he wanted to give a fair account, even accepting his figures, which I do not, he would have to divide his £9 million by four and deduct that from his £8½ million.

Mr. Page: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the capital cost of purchasing houses over here, I contend that that is arguable, because it is only the replacement by permanent houses here of houses which already exist in Malta.
I come next to the question of unemployment, the figures for which were given by the hon. Member for Barking —15 to 20 per cent. unemployment, with

unemployment pay at 54s. a week for 26 weeks only. This is a desperate state for this House to plunge a friendly country into. In this connection, I shall read early-day Motion No. 340, signed by 36 hon. Members opposite:
That this House expresses its grave concern at the January total of unemployment of over half a million wholly unemployed; feels that this is an unacceptable level; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to adopt measures that will increase production and ensure full employment throughout the United Kingdom.
To that Motion my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and I have proposed that the following should be added:
and further calls upon Her Majesty's Government to modify the new proposals for the defence run-down in Malta which will raise the level of unemployment in Malta to 18 per cent. or the equivalent of 4,500,000 unemployed in the United Kingdom.
If these facts were known by the people of this country, they would not for a moment tolerate the present Government's policy towards Malta.
Today, only one day after a letter from the wife of the High Commissioner for Malta appeared in the Daily Telegraph, over 600 letters of sympathy for Malta have arrived. They are still pouring in. They come from all over the country, including the Channel Islands and the Isle of Wight, and they come almost entirely from people who have never been to Malta but who feel that they have, as English people, an obligation to Malta.
Finally, there is the question of the effect of the Government's policy on industry and tourism in Malta, both of which, as the hon. Lady said, are doing well at present. I wish to read a cable from Malta received today by the Director-General of the Institute of Directors:
At meeting local members Institute of Directors we resolved seek your intervention by appealing to Fellows of the Institute…to back Malta Government's request that U.K. Government abide by original agreement thus preventing untold hardships to thousands Maltese families and severe consequences on local economy and set back industry and tourist development creating grave political problems and endangering Anglo-Maltese relations.
I should also like to read a letter from the chairman of a major development project, the free trade zone, which is the most exciting big development


Malta has. The chairman has given me permission to use it. He writes:
With regard to our Free Trade Zone (or Port) project we are naturally disturbed by the possibility that the now proposed rundown will produce unemployment and internal political instability with immediate adverse repercussions on Malta's present image abroad. This, in turn, would frighten off would-be investors for any major project for Malta, including ours.
That telegram and that letter from authoritative people speak for themselves.
Since last weekend I feel passionately a responsibility to the people of Malta and my constituents to beg the Government to change their mind and course so as not to force this loyal and friendly little people into a situation that could cause a catastrophic industrial depression, and possibly, in the long run, the break-down of the whole fabric of Maltese society.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. James Dickens: I want to begin by placing on record on behalf of myself and other members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Delegation to Malta our thanks for the courtesy, generosity and hospitality we received during our recent short but intensive visit to the island. I am sorry that I must this evening express a view contrary in many important respects to that voiced earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). There is more to it than just a question of difference of emphasis and approach, because my examination of the problem has led me to radically different conclusions, so that the unanimity to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) referred is an exaggeration and must not be taken to include me.
I went to Malta a firm supporter of the Government's decision to make defence cuts both on the island and generally as part of the reductions contained in Defence Review published last year. I regard Malta as a test case, a dress rehearsal for the withdrawal from Singapore which I hope will be forthcoming. The problems being thrown up in Malta will come up time and time again as we withdraw from Singapore, from Aden, and generally east of Suez, and I hope also from Western Germany.
I make no bones about the fact that think that we must keep a cool head

in a situation which may be unduly clouded by sentiment. I have made my view in this respect very clear to the House. I do not think that any hon. Member will charge me with failing to criticise the Government where I have thought that they were wrong in policy decisions at home and abroad. Thus, it is pertinent to refer briefly to my speech in the economic affairs debate on 1st December, when I set out my view of the overseas defence problem. I said:
I want the Armed Forces, by 1970, to number no more than 300,000 men. I want us to have left Malaysia, Singapore, the Persian Gulf and Western Germany and to see our overseas commitments confined to modest garrisons in Hong Kong, Gibraltar and West Berlin. We on this side expect to see defence spending at not more than £1,750 million in 1970, at 1964 prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1966; Vol. 737, cc. 709–710.]
That was my view then; it was the view which I publicly expressed in Malta over the weekend, and it is assuredly my view tonight. Besides supporting the Government's decision to make defence cuts in Malta, I want to see us reach a position in Malta by 1970 where we have no military expenditure at all there. I shall want a clear and convincing statement from my right hon. Friend tonight to justify a continued annual expenditure of £6 million after 1970 to maintain a Royal Air Force staging post on the island.
However, I have always taken the view, which I expressed on 1st December, that our withdrawal from overseas defence commitments must be a phased withdrawal. I have never taken the attitude that we can clear out, as it were tomorrow, without any regard to the local consequences or our overall foreign and defence policies; hence the need to renegotiate our treaty obligations, our bilateral agreements and Commonwealth commitments. There is also the need to start the process of renegotiation at the earliest opportunity, for example in the case of Singapore, and to tie the defence run-down as far as possible with an overseas aid programme within the limits of the aid this country can afford, as in the future case of Aden and I trust in Singapore also. It is worth mentioning in passing that British defence spending in Singapore is equal to 25 per cent. of that island's gross national product.
There are four basic questions to be resolved in dealing with this problem:


first, that of consultation; secondly, the phasing of the defence rundown; thirdly, the question of trying to relate the economic aid programme to the defence run-down; and finally the vitally important question of the future economic development of Malta.
Our delegation met Dr. Borg Olivier and his Cabinet on 28th January, when he raised the point of lack of consultation. My colleagues on the delegation will agree that I at once closely questioned him on that assertion. He confirmed that the Maltese Government had had advance notice of the intimation given in paragraph 21 of last year's Defence Review (Cmnd. 2901) of the Government's decision to make defence cuts in Malta. That was not last August but last February, and in advance of publication. He had then made representations to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who sent him a confidential reply which, in my judgment, set out a comprehensive and reasoned statement of the Government's position and made abundantly plain that the Government here would fully and adequately consult with the Maltese Government on the phasing of the rundown.

Mr. Driberg: I am not sure whether that was a confidential discussion or not. My hon. Friend says that there was advance notice, but Dr. Borg Olivier told us that he was astonished to be told of this on the very eve of publication of the Defence Review and that when he asked the High Commissioner if he could delete the words about Malta, or have them modified, he was told that it was already in print and on sale.

Mr. Dickens: I think that my hon. Friend will recollect that the Prime Minister of Malta confirmed to us then that he saw the statement in draft. I agree that he could not amend the draft. The point that I am trying to make is that he was given adequate notice then of the Government's policy decision to phase the rundown over the next four years. This was much earlier than August of last year when my noble Friend Lord Beswick made his visits.
Following this remark, Dr. Olivier made the assertion that when he came to London in September, 1966, after the visit of Lord Beswick to Malta the preceding

month to which the Minister of State referred, he raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other officials informally. He said that he felt that the rundown would take place over a period of from 15 to 20 years. When I asked for documentary evidence of this, none was forthcoming. Taking the sum of this, together with the carefully documented evidence presented by the Minister of State this afternoon, I am convinced that full and adequate consultations took place and that this was the local view in Malta until comparatively recently.
This agitation about the lack of consultation has been worked up over the past few weeks on the island. For example, The Times of Malta, owned by the redoubtable Miss Mabel Strickland, expressed this view on 14th January:
The Prime Minister—
that is Dr. Borg Olivier
referred to the serious consequences on the economy and on the employment situation in Malta if the British Government had to implement the reductions proposed at the time of Lord Beswick's visit to Malta last August. Those proposals have now been reviewed and it is believed that they have been modified. The present consultations—
and those consultations in January went on over four days and had been preceded by several months of exchanges between the respective Governments—
'are mainly on the results of the review of the British Government's original proposals.
Dealing then with the first of the four points that I have raised, I must place on record my conviction, as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Delegation to Malta, that, in my judgment, adequate consultations took place. It is always difficult to make up one's mind about where consultation begins and ends —the difference between consultation and mutual agreement. My impression over the weekend was very distinctly that the Maltese Government were not seeking consultation so much as mutual agreement, on the understanding that we maintained something like the present level of defence spending in Malta indefinitely.
The second question is: have the defence cuts been phased fairly over the periods? The first proposals of the Government, taken out by Lord Beswick in August last, proposed a reduction from the then anticipated level of spending of £50 million over a four-year period to a


level of £29 million, thus involving the Government in a cumulative overseas defence cut in Malta over four years of £21 million. It is important to be clear that the saving is not just the ultimate saving in 1970 of £6 million. There are savings in 1967–68–69, which must be added to the total in 1970.
The second proposal, as I understand it, was that the proposed spending over the four years should be increased from £29 million to £33 million, thus reducing the savings from £21 million to £17 million. This indicates a substantial saving in expenditure in Malta, not just £6 million in 1970 but £17 million. I think that I am right in saying that this is at present a saving in foreign exchange. I was interested to hear the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking on the present policy of the Maltese Government in this respect, and I would like this matter cleared up. My impression is that because of the convertibility of sterling this is a saving in foreign exchange, despite the fact that the saving is being effected in a territory within tie sterling area.
What is the effect of the re-phasing? I think the Government have been sensible in modifying the original proposals and in spreading them over a four-year period. It is worth noting that the defence reductions proposed by the Government for Malta in 1967–70 are less than those made between 1964–67. These proposals over four years are reasonable and practicable. When I was in Malta I expressed the view that our discussions must take place within the limits established by the Government's modified proposals and that any adjustments must be made on the military phasing within the Government's proposals.
I am now convinced that there is no military justification for any further re-phasing and that there is no breach of the 1964 Defence Agreement. The Minister of State referred to the letter in The Times yesterday, from the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) who said:
Britain I did not enter into any commitment to maintain a minimum number of troops in Malta.
He should know for he signed the 1964 Agreement.
There is some controversy as to the net saving at home. Now, it is obvious that the cost of keeping armed forces in Malta is substantially more than keeping the same forces here. There is, for example, the saving in the cost of sending men and families to and from Malta and in transporting equipment from Malta to England. This highlights another aspect of the problem to which we must give more attention, and that is the need to review the numbers in our Armed Forces in 1970 and subsequently, following withdrawal from east of Suez and from Western Germany. This makes the case not for bringing troops back from Malta or any other base and simply rehousing them here, but for pursing a policy of demobilisation of a substantial number of men when they return.
Under the Defence Review we are currently committed to a defence force of 451,000 men of whom 213,000 are stationed overseas. When the men return, this figure will be too high and, as I said on 1st December, I want to see the Armed Forces by 1970 numbering no more than 300,000 men. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will be giving close attention to the need for a rapid review of our requirements in 1970.
Mention has been made of the grave unemployment problem in Malta. No hon. Member—certainly no Member on this side of the House—can view with anything other than anxiety and concern a situation which creates a high level of unemployment, or which seems to do so. There is widespread doubt about the estimated unemployment figures in future. It is fair to say that every organisation which we met in Malta gave us a different figure for the level to which they thought unemployment would rise. I am not trying to minimise the matter, but it must not be exaggerated.
I am impressed by the fact that in 1962 a survey conducted on the effects of the rundown between 1962 and 1967 has proved to be seriously wrong. The forecasts of unemployment and the expected reduction in the gross national product were clearly unduly pessimistic. I entirely endorse the Minister of State's view that Malta is far more resilient in terms of its domestic economy than the local people believe. Far from the per capita


income falling, as was forecast, it reached £165 in 1965—a record for the island.
I turn to the question of the financial aid agreements. Malta is, I think, treated generously in this respect. I do not use the word "generously" in a patronising sense. A substantial amount of British aid is being given to Malta. In the three years ending 1967, £18,800,000 was made available, of which £17,700,000 has been spent. A balance of £31,200,000 remains for the seven years ending 1974. This does not relate to the oft-quoted figure of £18 per head, because I find, on examination, that this figure refers only to the calendar year 1965. The aid per head is, I understand, nearer £20, taking a three-year average from 1964 to 1967. This is the second highest in the Commonwealth. It is exceeded only by Zambia, where there are special circumstances.
It is worth noting that in the three years from 1964 to 1967 75 per cent. of the aid was made available in direct gift and 25 per cent. by loan. These terms are very much better than those generally available elsewhere.
My third question is: can the civil aid programme be dovetailed to meet the needs of the defence rundown?

Sir W. Teeling: rose—

Mr. Dickens: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
The first requirement is to ensure that the high-powered industrial commission which I understand is leaving for Malta shortly, and whose announcement I warmly welcome, obtains from Dr. Borg Olivier a clear commitment to establish forthwith a Malta Development Corporation in terms of Article 4(2) of the financial assistance agreement of 1964. The House is bound to ask the Malta Government why it has taken them since September, 1964, to get this elementary, basic step under way. There is a need for Dr. Olivier to take this initiative by responding to the overtures of the Government as announced today by saying that he will set up this Corporation without further delay.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that the Maltese Government must show much more drive and application in dealing

with their own problems. I go further. I think that they must show a real desire to plan the island's economy. In the recent past, it has become a paradise for property speculators and investment by private entrepreneurs on a completely unplanned basis. The answer to Malta's domestic economic problems is planned economic and commercial growth.
The things which one would like to see happen in Malta can be summarised as follows. First, I hope that the Maltese Government will soon examine the possibility of effecting a Customs union with Libya. Secondly, the dockyard requires drastic modernisation spread over the next two years to provide new quays, a new dock and more equipment. There is also a need for a rapid increase in shipbuilding as distinct from dock repairing. Tourism is on the increase, but the increase in recent years, while significant, has been nothing like as great as it could have been. The number of tourists was increased from 11,000 in 1957 to 48,000 in 1965.
Mr. Dom Mintoff assured me on Sunday evening, in the course of a conversation lasting over two hours—my hon Friend the Member for Barking will agree with this—that the Maltese economy could certainly cope with 400,000 tourists in the 1970s. Therefore, the scope is enormous. We invite the Maltese Government to consider establishing a Malta central bank to encourage investment in the development corporation by making available, perhaps, a 10-year tax-free holiday for investments and to stimulate local industry by making the building of hotels conditional on the use of a certain proportion of local ancillaries.
Finally, I wish to refer to one aspect which concerns me very much, and that is the ability of the rich Maltese to help their own islands. I was concerned to note that there is no pay-as-you-earn Income Tax system and that there was alleged to be much tax evasion. On my return to this country I took expert nonofficial advice and I am assured that this is the case. Again, there is no difference between earned and unearned income for taxation purposes. Income Tax in Malta accounts for only 19 per cent. of the national income of the island. This figure can be compared with 35 per cent. in the United Kingdom. I know that the economies are different,


but the gap is far too wide for that to be the only explanation.
There is the question of the export of capital from Malta. There can be no doubt that the export of capital by rich Maltese in recent years has been enormous. Indeed, the amount returned from overseas investment to Maltese private citizens reached £2 million in 1965.

Sir W. Teeling: On a point of order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker. We have heard speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and by the Government representative. Since those speeches, each contribution has been made by people who have just been out on this last delegation which, I gather, was there for only 48 hours. Are we to understand that what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) is telling us is what he heard there, or is it what he has been briefed on by the Government since he returned to this country?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I remind the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Dickens: I take your point, Mr. Speaker, and apologise for speaking too long.
I think that the Government's defence cuts in Malta are justified. There has been adequate consultation. The overseas aid programme for Malta is substantial and, given the will locally, the technical assistance given by this country can be used to the advantage of the island. I repeat my firm conviction that the development of Malta as an independent country rests on its own initiative and on economic planning, and I wish Malta every success in thus meeting the challenge of the years ahead.

6.39 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I shall try to be as brief as possible because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I do not know that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) has made a very helpful contribution to solving the problems of Malta. It is no good muddling the situation up with a lot of statistics and figures. We are

dealing with the human problem of how these people are to live.
The hon. Lady the Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs, was not in her best form. However, I sympathise with her, because she was probably given the brief at fairly short notice in deputising for the Minister. What she said was not very helpful. We have merely been told that an industrial Mission will probably go to Malta. We were not told whether there will be financial backing if it makes proposals acceptable to the Maltese Government.
We all recognise, on both sides, that our Forces overseas must be reduced in size. I have posed myself this question. There are something like 60,000-plus British troops in the Far East. The wat with Indonesia, or the possible war which might have taken place, is over. We were told by the Prime Minister a year ago that there would be massive withdrawals from the Far East. We now believe that the "massive withdrawals" may be 10,000.

Mr. Healey: indicated dissent.

Sir A. V. Harvey: The Secretary of State does not agree. Perhaps he will tell us the figures later.
We hear little these days about the number of troops to be brought back from Germany. Everybody is agreed that the possibility of war in Central Europe today is negligible. We are looking at the problem in the Central Mediterranean area from a human point of view. If troops are to be brought home, whether from Aden or the Far East, as Malta's economy is in a special position why cannot those troops and married families be phased through Malta?
We are told that the Government want to buy some 3,000 additional homes in the private market. This does not reflect much on the Government's housing record in this country. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West talked about what had not been done in Malta during the last two years. He had better look at the record of his own Government and see what they have done during the last two years before criticising the Maltese.
I would say that during the last two years the Maltese Government have made


tremendous, impressive strides. The reason they are unable to make greater strides is the lack of able civil servants to deal with planning and the rest. Everybody who has been to Malta cannot help but be impressed by what the Maltese have achieved in a very short time.
But why pick on Malta in this savage manner? We know that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State went out in August and more or less told the Maltese Government what would happen. More recently, the Secretary of State went out there. Whatever the hon. Lady may tell us, there has not been real consultation.
Furthermore, Malta is one of the few places that welcome British troops. It seems extraordinary to keep them in places where they are not welcome and to bring them back from a country which really wants them. We all agree that this move is not being done for defence reasons—of course, not. My right hon. Friend's letter to The Times yesterday was dead right. The contract is not being broken, but the spirit of the contract is.
These people were maintained on that small island for over a century working mainly in the British naval dockyard There is no scope for them. It may be that we as a nation were much to blame for giving them so little scope in agriculture and in citrus fruit growing. We have a responsibility. Successive Governments have not dealt with this matter properly. They have simply employed the people in dockyards or on airfields to suit our own convenience.
As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West has said, a great deal of building of hotels has taken place on the island. Five or six large hotels are being built. There is a shortage of masons and craftsmen. These hotels, however, will be completed in two years' time. We cannot go on building hotels indefinitely. This work will have to ease up. The craftsmen will then work on building small villas or bungalows or renovating houses. There will not be work for them just at the time it is needed when the Forces are run down in three or four years' time.
Of the population of 317,000, only 88,000 are gainfully employed and at present 8,000 are unemployed. The balance of payment figures show that

£27·7 million is poured into the island through invisible exports. Visible exports amount to only £7·1 million out of an aggregate of £34·8 million. It would be quite impossible for the Maltese Government to collect an equivalent amount of invisible exports.
In four years' time, we shall get the full effect of the Government's proposals, which mean that 7,000 Maltese who are now earning their living with the British Forces will be out of work. I recognise that some of them will be absorbed in the expansion of the tourist industry, but a hotel does not take all that many waiters, cooks and the rest.
In the meantime, 11,500 school leavers will be thrown on to the labour market. I recognise that a number will go to Australia and America and some will come here, but that is not the answer to their problem. It can, therefore, be seen that by 1970 some 17,000 people on the island will be unemployed.
At Question Time the other day, I asked whether we could be given some figures on economics. The problem is so important that the House should have a White Paper showing the exchanges and setting out the actual facts so that everybody can study it. How much of every £1 spent on a British Service man in Malta finds its way back to the United Kingdom?
The problem in Malta is entirely different from that of Germany. British ships and British aircraft have a monopoly. The N.A.A.F.I. sells British products. The British soldier, sailor or airman even uses British postage stamps to write home to his family in Britain. He may drink local beer, which is produced by a British company. The net loss to this country cannot amount to a great deal in the long run.
I wonder whether the Government would dish out this treatment to Zambia if the case was reversed. Only yesterday, nearly £14 million was signed up for Zambia. I wonder. My impression is that the Maltese are charming, delightful people and are not really capable of getting beneath another Government's skin, which they are doing their best to do this week. In this respect, I think that they have acted a litte too hastily. I would have preferred the Maltese Government this week to have seen the result


of this debate before starting to refuse supplies to our Forces.
I wish briefly to refer to the Royal Malta Artillery, comprising 950 officers and men, and not the 720 as mentioned by my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] We cannot both be right. One battalion is in Germany and the other in Malta. There has always been disparity in pay. I do not know why the pay of the Royal Malta Artillery is not up to the level of that of the British troops.
We were told the other day that the opportunity will be given to the Maltese in the Royal Malta Artillery to volunteer for the British Forces. That is a fine outlook when we know that even British Forces are being run down year by year. No Maltese who volunteers for the British Army will ever have the chance to serve on his own territory for the rest of his working life. What a grim offer to make to these men when, in one month during the war, in May, 1943, the Royal Malta Artillery shot down 102 aircraft.
I hope that we will not be told that this is all slop stuff. It is not. We have had our connection with this island for 150 years. There is real feeling about it in Britain, far more feeling than in the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister understands this. He will know about it as the weeks and months go by.
There has been real comradeship throughout the last 150 years between the British and the Maltese Forces. The late King George VI made himself Colonel-in-Chief—these are not laughing matters—at the height of the war, when the Maltese were living on one meal a day from a soup kitchen. They were not getting the food which our Forces got during the war. Their water supplies in the island were cut off. Petrol had to be taken in by submarine. I do not think that any of us in these islands, except those who served there, has any conception of what the people of that island underwent during the war.
This is a situation which Parliament cannot tolerate. I ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for whom I have had great affection over 20 or more years for his fairness in dealing with these matters, to look at this one not from the standpoint of a defence agreement, but from a human point of view, to spread the agreement, not over four years, but over,

perhaps, six or seven years, and to phase back troops from the Far East through Malta. Above all, I ask his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to telephone Dr. Borg Olivier inviting him to come to this country for discussions, in an endeavour to settle this problem in the next few days.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: My hon. Friend made a long, interesting and well-informed speech. However, in my view, it was totally irrelevant to the issue which we are discussing, because it is an issue not of economics but of emotions. There are intense emotions involved, and it is not only new and inexperienced Governments who allow an emotional issue to override their interests and their reason. Even experienced Governments do it sometimes, but inexperienced Governments do it more often, and one has a special responsibility when one feels that sort of thing happening. After all, we have seen an Empire dissolve. It may be that we comfort ourselves by saying that it has turned into a Commonwealth. None the less, it has been a humiliating experience.
In what remained of the Empire when we came to power two years ago, there were two places where there was an intense emotional attachment to this country. With one of them, we are in tragic conflict. I am not saying anything about the rights or wrongs of the Rhodesian situation, but I remember, in that summer of 1965, talking to my right hon. Friends and saying to them, "It is no use saying that the 1961 Constitution gives all the reality of independence without external burdens. What they are concerned with is the emotional question. They are being treated as inferiors to their late colleagues in the Federation. Unless you get over that, it is not interests but emotions which will override". That was not appreciated and, as a result, we have reached this tragic pass. I hope most profoundly that, in the case of Malta, we shall find a happier solution.
In Malta, we are dealing with an immediate emergency. It may be that we have 24 hours to resolve it. We have to save her face before she cuts off her own nose. Somehow, we have to find an escape for a Government who, in high emotion, have


unwisely grossly over-committed themselves. That is all we are talking about. We are not discussing the rights or wrongs or long-term economics. We are considering how we can find an escape for the Maltese Government from the position in which they have put themselves.
I am confident that a high-powered economic Mission is not the answer. The Maltese know that they have our cooperation, and we have persuaded them to postpone the Third Reading of their Visiting Forces Repeal Bill for one day. It would be quite impossible for Dr. Borg Oliver to go to his Parliament and say, "We can postpone this now. We can leave these forces and not do the things which we have said we intend to do, because the British Government are sending us a high-powered Mission." That is no good. What we have to do is to say that we will have another look at the defence situation, because, with Malta's wartime record, it is in that that there are emotional issues involved. It is that which makes her people feel that we are treating them as inferiors. It is there that their feelings are hurt. It is only by a movement in our defence position that we can give them a chance to have second thoughts.
I beg my right hon. Friend to say that we will stay everything for the time being and reconsider the position. I ask him to say that we will appoint economists and work out what is the saving in having troops here rather than in Malta. After all, from the point of view of a strategic reserve, nothing could be more convenient than Malta's position—even Germany's. Even if it means less aid, I ask my right hon. Friend to think hard about this. If we can move from our position on defence, it may save the situation.
If my right hon. Friend says in answer to a point from an hon. Member opposite that we are leaving once-and-for-all capital costs and annual costs, we have had a good many once-and-for-all capital costs. We had Cyprus once and for all for Suez. We had McKinnon Roads once and for all for Cyprus. We had Aden once and for all for McKinnon Roads. Now, of all places, once and for all we have Sharjah. It is realised that capital costs for more troops often turn out to be of a very temporary nature? If we are in-

tending to reduce our Armed Forces considerably, it must be remembered that new equipment, new barracks and housing will be required here, and they will not be a permanent requirement. I ask my right hon. Friend to try and take one more look at this and reconsider it.
My right hon. Friend and I have worked together for many years, closely and well. I have a great admiration for many of his policies. However, at times I have felt that he was a little rigid. Sometimes he lacked the capacity to see the wood for the trees. Those are characteristics which, at the moment, could be tragic. What he requires is to find imagination and flexibility to seize an opportunity to deal with a situation which has arisen, not through his fault primarily, because there is fault on both sides, but because the Maltese Government have gone too quickly and got themselves out on a limb. He has to provide a ladder for them to get down from that limb, and it must be a ladder in defence terms. Economics do not affect the emotions of the situation. I beg my right hon. Friend to take that action before the consequences become tragic.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: It was not helpful to bring in a comparison with Rhodesia or Zambia. When one hon. Gentleman said that, during the war, the Maltese people had only one meal a day, the thought which sprang to my mind was that there are many people in Africa today who do not even get one meal a day. That kind of comparison is not helpful to the Maltese people or to the argument.
I stand firmly by a commitment that we want defence cuts and we want them quickly and substantially. We cannot go on affording a world peace-keeping role. But why choose Malta first? Why concentrate so harshly on Malta, when the cuts which can be made there or anywhere else in the Mediterranean are peanuts in comparison with what could be made east of Suez?
We hear talk about an expenditure of £6 million per year in Malta. I compare that with the cost of about £60 million on each Polaris submarine.
I differ from the Government in that I do not accept quite as happily as they


seem to, the idea of unemployment among people, simply because they do not happen to live here. We have a responsibility for the results of our actions, whether they are done to our own people or to people anywhere in the world. I still nurse a few follies, and I believe in the brotherhood of man. I do not remember the answer to the question, "Who is my neighbour", as being "Those people who have the right to vote for members of the British House of Commons".
I do not accept the argument that we should build our hospitals on the misery of the people of Malta. In fact, if Malta were a part of this country, 15 per cent. or 18 per cent. unemployment would be totally unacceptable, and there is not a Member here who would deny that. I represent a part of this country which has a higher level of unemployment than most, but it does not approach anything like the level which will be seen in Malta in a short time if these proposals go through. I want defence cuts, but not at any price. We have to balance the savings which we are going to make against their social, economic, and emotional results.
On the question of social results, let me destroy some of the myths which seem to be going around. We have been told that the Maltese economy is resilient. I suppose that one can say that of almost any economy. But it is very difficult to create new jobs quickly enough, and it cannot be done just by pouring in more and more money. We all know, particularly those who have any experience of development areas in this country, that there must be demand for the products that one is going to create, and it is not easy to create this demand overnight, or even in a matter of two or four years. To pour in more and more money to build more hotels, more factories, and so on, will merely create a glut of unwanted services. One has to be able to sell them.
It is easy to say that one can expand the tourist industry. The fact is that it is already expanding very rapidly, but my experience shows quite clearly that the people whom the tourist industry finds it easiest to employ are the young people. Three-quarters of those who are going to be made redundant by these cuts are over 40. It is very difficult to take these people on when there are younger

people competing for jobs in the hotel industry.
During the brief visit which I paid to the island as part of a delegation there was no sign that tourists would not be very welcome indeed. I am convinced that they will receive as good a welcome as we did, and I hope that everyone who is not thinking of a holiday on the North Cornish coast, will go there.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Some firms report very serious cuts in tourist bookings. One firm has reported a cut of at least 20 per cent.

Mr. Pardoe: I fear that this may be so. It is partly the result of the defence situation, but it is also partly the result of the somewhat heated political temperature in Malta. I am sure that we all wish it to be kept down for this reason, but I found nothing whatever to show that tourists would not be welcomed there, and would not have a very good holiday.
There is a myth about the increase in the population. The hon. Lady said the trouble was that the population was increasing faster than jobs. Of course, this is true, but do not let us get this out of proportion. It is an over-populated island, and they have large families, but they have had one remarkable success. By a series of amazingly successful Lenten sermons for young engaged and married couples the Roman Catholic church has managed to get the birthrate down to below what it is in this country, and when one considers the Mediterranean temperament and the religious difficulties one realises that this is a matter for considerable congratulation.
We have to balance the savings that we make against the social consequences, and perhaps I might recap on the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) about the social security provisions. Unemployment in Malta is a grisly prospect. It is something which people in this country knew a lot about in the 'thirties. It is not something that we know a lot about today, because our unemployment pay levels are so much higher.
I do not want to concern myself with the method of consultation. The word "consultations" can mean anything. What unfortunately happened was that the Maltese Government wanted the verb,


"to agree", we wanted the verb "to inform", so we compromised on the verb "to consult". We know what happens as a result of that kind of compromise. Each side sells it to its supporters as meaning what it originally wanted it to mean.
This agreement, dealing with defence and finance is disgracefully vague, and that is the answer to the point made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) who said that there were assumptions of a defence expenditure underlying it. I thought that the days of secret treaties had long since gone. If those assumptions were there, they should have been written into the treaty.

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman knows that the treaty was rushed through with considerable haste during the last days of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Pardoe: I thought that the general tenor of my remarks would be clear. I am criticising the Conservative Government who made this treaty, not the present Government who, I know, have no responsibility for creating it.
I come, now, to what I believe we have to do to get the Maltese Government off the hook. We must withdraw the threat of closures until this economic study has been made. It is no good sending out a high-powered body of economists, industrialists, and civil servants, if we tell the Maltese Government that whatever they say we are going to withdraw our troops in April anyway. The withdrawals will have to depend on what that report says, whether it says, for instance, that it is possible to create the jobs which the Government say it is possible to create, and whether the levels of unemployment will be anything like acceptable. If the report says that we cannot create these jobs quickly enough, we will have to rephase the run down. I believe that the answer is to have a period of two years in which nothing happens at all, and then to start the rundown, but to do it in such a way that the major reductions take place at the end of the rundown, rather than at the beginning.
This whole Malta problem raises vast issues of how to cast off an empire, and it is proving considerably more difficult

than winning one. It also raises the issue of how to cast off an old love—how to say goodbye; because even if we accept that eventually we have to say goodbye to these old empire countries, it is important that we say it with kindness, and with understanding, and my charge against the Government tonight is not so much that they have been totally wrong, but that they have been totally insensitive.
Let them for heavens sake make gestures now. They will not cost a fortune. They certainly will not cost very much by comparison with the sort of defence expenditure in other spheres which I outlined a short time ago. Let them make the gestures which will enable the Maltese Government to get off the hook, and I hope that these gestures, if and when they are made, will be received with a strength of leadership in Malta.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who was a most charming and hard-working member of the delegation to Malta last weekend, and I must confirm what the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) said about the strength and unanimity of the feeling in Malta which we encountered throughout the island.
The sense of shock and disillusion is very great. It is felt by the British residents on the island as much as by the Maltese themselves. Indeed, the British are very embarrassed by the present situation. It is felt and expressed by everyone from the Governor-General down to the chap who cleaned my shoes in the hotel. I was told by a distinguished historian whom I met in Malta that the island has not been so united politically on any issue since 1805, and I can well believe it.
The background to all this is the 1964 Agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who cannot be here today because he is in Germany, negotiated and signed that agreement, and in his absence I suppose that, on this side of the House anyway, I perhaps know as much about it as anyone, because I was a Minister in the Colonial Office at the time, and I remember it all very well.
The 1964 agreement was a package deal. There were many defence features about it which the Prime Minister of Malta did not like, but he accepted it as a whole after long and difficult negotiations. Some hon. Members will remember that we debated the matter just before we rose for the Summer Recess in 1964. That was because it had taken such a long time. At the end it was accepted as a package deal because of the very generous financial aid which it provided and also because—and this was the predominant point—of the high level of employment in Malta which the agreement was designed to ensure and which was one of the intentions in my right hon. Friend's mind in presenting it to Malta.
It was accepted in that spirit by the Prime Minister of Malta. We have given aid to Malta on a very good scale—£18 per head of the population. This is a higher per capita rate than for any other Commonwealth country, with the possible recent exception of Zambia. But only now, nearly 2½ years later, has Malta almost, but not quite, recovered from the first defence rundown, which began in 1959. Before that her unemployment level was about 3 per cent.—much the same as our own—but today it is still 8 per cent. because she has not quite got over the 1959 rundown. The new British proposals for withdrawal will raise the figure to 18 per cent. That is a staggering figure, equivalent to 4½ million unemployed in Britain. It is quite unacceptable and unthinkable.

Mrs. Hart: I do not want to minimise the unemployment figures, but I want to see the record straight. Our estimate is not 18 per cent. At the moment, at the end, it would be 14 per cent. [Interruption.] I know—but I did not want to allow the figure of 18 per cent. to pass.

Mr. Fisher: I know that is the hon. Lady's attitude, because I listened to the Commonwealth Secretary addressing the House the other day, and he mentioned a figure of 13 per cent. She has upped it by 1 per cent.
All I can say is that in Malta 18 per cent. was the unanimous figure given by the trade union leaders, the Prime Minister and the British High Commissioner. That figure was universally accepted. We can agree to differ, although I do not know why the hon.

Lady is so pleased with a figure of 14 per cent.

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. I said that I did not want to minimise the extent of unemployment. It is merely that I did not want to allow the excessive figure of 18 per cent. to go down on the records of the House as being the Government's view.

Mr. Fisher: I got my figures from the people of Malta. I do not know where the hon. Lady got her figures. Presumably she got them from Malta also. That is why I am surprised that she was told that it was only 14 per cent. Even that is a terrifying rate of unemployment.
As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, men of 40 and over are very difficult to retrain in the tourist industry when they have been doing something quite different perhaps in the dockyard. They are too old to emigrate and they are too young to be pensioned off. There will be a real problem for middle-aged men of 40 and over. We must also bear in mind that the effect of unemployment in Malta is very much greater than it would ever be in this country, because Malta's unemployment benefit is so much lower than our's. It is 54s. a week for a man, for 26 weeks in the year, and 36s. a week for a woman —with no family allowances. At the end of 26 weeks the unemployed person goes on to National Assistance at 27s. 6d. a week and that is all. That means virtual destitution.
These are some of the social effects, and they are very serious in human terms. To have unemployment on that scale for a long period could lead to civil disturbances in Malta—they are a somewhat volatile people—and a consequent reduction in tourism, just at the time when tourism is beginning to gather momentum and to develop very promisingly for the island. The hon. Lady herself said that our withdrawal would lead to disastrous unemployment in Malta.
The British Government's decision was a cruel blow to Malta. They feel too that the blow was brutally inflicted. No one suggests that we have broken the letter of the 1964 agreement, but they sincerely believe—I ask the hon. Lady to accept this—that we have broken the spirit. Under Article 6 we agreed to consult the Government of Malta whenever


major changes in our forces were contemplated. I agree that "consult" is a difficult word to define. It does not mean as much as "agree", but it means more than "inform". The Maltese say that they were merely informed.
The sequence of events is this: A year ago, without consulting Malta, Britain announced the broad outlines of her Defence Review. Malta protested at her inclusion, by name, in it. On 23rd February, 1966, the Prime Minister sent the Prime Minister of Malta a very reassuring telegram, in which he said that the Defence Review was a general statement of policy and that the number of men to be withdrawn and the dates of their withdrawal would be matters for subsequent consultation and, he went on:
We fully abide by our obligation to consult with you when major changes in Malta are contemplated.
That telegram was intended to reassure the Maltese, and it did.
The Maltese heard nothing further from Her Majesty's Government until Lord Beswick arrived with his two-year plan. This was totally unacceptable to Malta—not surprisingly—and was rejected without discussion by the Maltese. Then, on 13th January, came the Commonwealth Secretary with his four-year withdrawal plan, and, as I pointed out in an intervention, before he had even met the Prime Minister of Malta he announced to the Press at Valletta Airport that there was no room for bargaining on any major point in the scheme that he had brought. To say the least, this was a tactless and very inept way to start consultations— if one can call them that—with the Maltese Government. As a method of consultation it was very much resented in Malta. They considered that it was not consultation, but simply a diktat. They were not being consulted; they were being informed.
I turn now to the defence aspects of the new plans. The Commonwealth Secretary told the House last week that by 1970 only one Royal Air Force Squadron would be left in Malta but that "a range of defence facilities" would be retained there. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what this "range of defence facilities" is to be? I am informed by the most senior British officers in Malta that there will be no—I emphasise the

word "no"—Army or Navy personnel left in Malta by 1971, except some British Service men employed at the N.A.T.O. headquarters. What will the "range of defence facilities" consist of? I do not understand. And will they be sufficient to defend the N.A.T.O. headquarters and the territorial integrity of Malta? The Prime Minister of Malta thinks not. I asked him if there was any real threat to Malta. At the moment there is not, and he acknowledged that, but he replied, quite fairly I thought, that there had not been any threat to Malta, either, at the time of the signing of the 1964 agreement.
In fact, as the hon. Lady well knows, the Russian presence in the Mediterranean is increasing all the time. It is a great deal stronger now than it was in those days. The oil supply from Libya is also increasing, and Malta is the route through which it comes. It is certainly a British interest to keep this oil route open, to keep Malta pro-West, and to deny Malta to any unfriendly Power. That has always been British policy in the Mediterranean.
No one disputes our right to withdraw from Malta if we cannot afford to stay there, but what shall be save by going? The Commonwealth Secretary said that we would save £6 million. That is a small sum in relation to the defence budget of £2,000 million a year. The question is whether we shall save even as much as that? One can save a little, it is true, by the family passages to and fro, but not a very large sum. One can save more if one intends to disband the returning units, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) pointed out, disbandment can be of any unit anywhere—so why pick on Malta, where the damage to her economy is so great?
If one is not going to disband, in what way is it cheaper to keep two infantry battalions in this country than in Malta? One saves on the Malta tail, but one would probably have to employ a certain number of people for the British tail and at much higher wages than those paid to the Maltese. I do not think there is very much saving of money there.
My hon. Friend for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said there were 1,500 families involved. I thought there were 3,100 families of British Service men in Malta, and I still believe that to be the


figure. There are 8,000 dependants. I think the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me the figures the other day. There are 3,100 families to be rehoused when they come back here. That represents a lot of money. I do not know what one calculates as being the cost of a house. Perhaps it is £4,000. My hon. Friend took that as the figure. That would mean £12½ million to rehouse the families of Service men—without any extra barracks, which perhaps we do not need. The married quarters, the schools for Service children and the hospitals in Malta will be left empty and unused.
We visited one of the battalions, and saw how good the married quarters are and how happy the families of Servicemen are who are living in them. Malta is indeed a pulling point for recruitment for the British Army. People like the station and they wish to join the Army partly to experience the sort of facilities provided there. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of saving £6 million, had he taken into account the cost of rehousing these families in Britain? The net saving may be minimal or even non-existent.
We shall lose what the commander-in-chief described to me as being the finest naval training area in the world. We shall also lose, if we go out completely, a valuable staging airfield to Africa. For an absurdly small saving —I do not know how much—we shall create a truly massive—whether 18 per cent., as I think, or 14 per cent., as the hon. Lady thinks—unemployment figure in Malta, and cause very serious damage to Anglo-Maltese relations, which have been so good for so long.
Will not the Government think again? Will not they talk again with Malta? Will they genuinely consult with Malta—whatever the argument about consultation, that is all in the past about the re-phasing of our withdrawal over a longer period? It would make all the difference to Malta if we could phase over six or seven years instead of four, and if we could have the hump, the big withdrawal, towards the end of the period instead of at the beginning, when they have not yet quite got over the 1959 defence rundown? 
I do not condemn the Government for their position. I understand it very

well. That is why I did not feel inclined to sign the Conservative back bench Motion on the Order Paper. I do not condemn the Government at all. I just implore them—and I mean this very sincerely—to add up again the net saving, to consider the really calamitous effect upon Malta and upon our relations with Malta, and see where the balance lies. Even at this hour that could be done. Only a few days remain.
If the Government agree with the view of hon. Members on this side of the House, and with the view of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that something should be done, then it would be splendid if we could make the magnanimous gesture of inviting Dr. Borg Olivier to London for talks. There is need for statesmanship and for imagination. Let us give the lead, which, essentially, must come from Britain, and then I believe this problem can be solved. I do implore the right hon. Gentleman to take the suggestion seriously, because if he does not do so, it may mean the end of our good relations with Malta, and it may be a catastrophy for Malta, to which we owe so much.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will reply to some of the very interesting points which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House who have recently visited Malta.
I apologise for intervening in the debate as one who has not been to Malta for the last two or three years. However, it is possible that those hon. Members who have so recently come in touch with the problem there may have, as it were, solidified their arguments. The House will appreciate that they have fallen into two groups. There have been those whom we might call the "maintainers" and those whom we might call the "replacers". I am on the side of the replacers. The "maintainers" are those who feel that, for one reason or another, it is essential to retain the base in Malta; the "replacers" are those who feel that our task is not to remain, but that we should make a very effective and massive financial replacement.
My quarrel with the Government is not that they have decided to run down the base in Malta and to withdraw our troops, but that their proposals for mitigating the consequences of the withdrawal are insufficiently imaginative and quite inadequate. Not enough has been heard of the views of the Malta Labour Party. I should like to quote from a letter I received from the leader of that party, Mr. Dom Mintoff, with whom I have been keeping up a fairly regular correspondence in recent years. Referring to the Financial Agreement of 1964 he says:
By virtue of the Financial Agreement, Malta is receiving aid from Britain to help her change her economy from garrison to normal production.
It was envisaged at that stage that the process of change should take place, and what has been happening is an acceleration of that process.
It is not within the bounds of possibility that the process should be held up or reversed. What we are seeking to ensure is that the people of Malta should be cushioned more effectively from the consequences of the Government's present proposals, and we must ask the Government to give more serious consideration to this.
Mr. Dom Mintoff points out that the help provided under the existing agreement has been inadequate. He argues that during this period the abnormal unemployment figure of 9 per cent. was due in part to the inadequacy of that Agreement. He places some of the blame on the Government of Malta. The view of the Malta Labour Party is that independence for Malta is a mockery while it retains a British base there. He says:
This fact is recognised by all the sections if the Maltese people…the reactionary rich, look upon the base as the best guarantee against any serious social upheavals. Others, like the workers and trade unions, can't ignore the employment factor: there are 8,000 workers directly employed by the British Defence Departments. Should the latter become redundant, there is no alternative employment for them and they will be thrown into the social scrapheap.
It is not necessary to explain to you why Malta's long-term interests cannot tolerate a base. But at the moment it is a necessary evil.
This is why there is this degree of apparent agreement between the two

parties which have been so long and bitterly opposed. Beneath that surface agreement there remains a fundamental cleavage. They agree that Her Majesty's Government's approach has been utterly inadequate but there is a difference between them as to what the alternative should be.
Broadly speaking, the Malta Government take the view that the base should be retained over a longer period. The Malta Labour Party—which, I remind my right hon. Friend, constitutes a very large section of opinion in the island, has been the Government and will, I hope, become the Government again before long—has views in relation to the planning of the resources of Malta which are much more in line with Her Majesty's Government's own views and are much more likely to make effective use of aid which we bring to Malta than the present régime.
For this reason, I urge my right hon. Friend, when he sends whoever he is to send, whatever delegation or expertise, well-qualified people—and it is extremely important to provide Malta with a kind of brain drain so that we can assist and provide them with training—to realise that the fundamental need in Malta is for capital investment for adequate financial protection for those who will inevitably be displaced and for adequate retraining in alternative occupations.
It is on these lines that I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond because if, as a result of the Government's action in relation to Malta, either the figure of 18 per cent. unemployment or even the lesser figure of 14 per cent. comes about and remains for a considerable period, Her Majesty's Government will not only be disgraced in Malta but disgraced in their own eyes and in the eyes of their supporters here.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: One fact emerges with stark clarity from the scene which the House has been contemplating in the course of this debate. It is a fact which had been recognised, though in different words and with different emphasis, by almost everyone who has taken part. It is that the Government have made a terrible hash of our relations with Malta.
The Government's decisions, the way those decisions are to be applied, the way they have been conveyed and notified, have resulted in a state of antipathy between this country and Malta which is unparalleled in 150 years of our history together—one which has, wisely or unwisely, impelled the Government of Malta to be in course of actions which, as the Minister of State said, would make the position of our forces virtually untenable.
It is the result of the Government's actions so far that those establishments which they themselves believe will be needed in Malta indefinitely, the value to us and to our allies which they themselves believe Malta still has and will long continue to have, is today, almost at this hour, in jeopardy of being wholly thrown away.
Many who have spoken have deprecated—and it is natural and right that we should in this House and at this distance deprecate—the haste and the violence with which the people and the Government of Malta have reacted. But looking at it from their point of view, it is not difficult to understand why. In this House and in this country we have got to try to put ourselves for a little in their place. Perhaps I may once again quote the words of that Agreement, which is of supreme importance to the Government and the people of Malta. It says:
The Government of the United Kingdom will consult the Government of Malta when major changes in the British forces in Malta which might have significant effects on the finances or economy of Malta are contemplated.
Now there can be, I admit, minds to whom those words would mean that the Government of the United Kingdom "will, just before public announcement, inform the Government of Malta when major changes, etc., have been decided upon and are about to be published." That is the sense in which they have hitherto been interpreted by Her Majesty's Government. We know as a fact that when the White Paper of 22nd February last year announced that there would be
substantial economies in our contingents in Malta 
and that the Government
intend…to enter into consultations …for a reduction of British Forces in the next few years

—the first intimation of this intention, of this conclusion of the defence review, came when the British High Commissioner delivered the extract from the White Paper on the eve of its publication.
So that was the first link in the chain of events during these last 12 months which has led us to where we are today. But then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) told the House, the anxiety was assuaged. After all, the White Paper only referred to
a reduction of British Forces in the next few years".
It was all very vague. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister assured the Government of Malta that there would be a long time to think and talk about this —and, of course there would, as usual, be full consultation.
The next event was the arrival in Malta of Lord Beswick in August last year. Why in August particularly? Because in July, the Government had discovered that our economy had been blown off course. They came to the House on 20th July with a series of hastily-taken panic measures, one of which was a reduction of £100 million in overseas expenditure, mainly defence expenditure, secured by bringing forward actions which would otherwise have been taken over a much longer period.
The Prime Minister assured the House that these items which added up to £100 million had already been decided upon. May I remind the House of his words? He said:
The Government have decided on firm programmes which will reduce our overseas Government expenditure, military and civil, by at least £100 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 632.]
We were afterwards told that that was to be by the next financial year. So the Government had taken decisions. When the noble Lord went out to Malta to tell the Malta Government that the run down was now going to take place in only two years, his function was to communicate something which had already been decided. The Maltese were now being told of their part in the £100 million package. They were being told where they stood in the list which the Government had already compiled.
Naturally, there was a violent shock and reaction at this wholly unexpected


interpretation of what they had been led to understand was implied by the result of the defence review as announced in the White Paper. As we have been reminded, Dr. Borg Olivier came to this country and saw the Prime Minister here. Months passed. We come to January of this year. Time was now pressing for the Government. After holding out on this House month after month and refusing to give any details of the contents of that £100 million package, the Secretary of State had at last said that the particulars would be given in the defence White Paper in February. So something had to be done about it.
The Commonwealth Secretary went out to announce a third and final diktat and, on arrival at the airport in Malta, stated that "there was no room for bargaining" as far as the major points of the proposals he was carrying were concerned. It was a piece of delicacy and tact which would hardly excite admiration on the part of a rhinoceros. So the people of Malta were told for the third time what had been decided about them. For the third time, they had been consulted.
What they have now been told would have the effect upon them, in the Government's own opinion, that there
is bound to be increased unemployment as a result of this rundown, which will be higher during the first two years—".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 1277.]
As to the scale, there is a disagreement of only 4 per cent. between the 14 per cent. from the Government and the 18 per cent. from the Government of Malta, in the estimate of what it means for the Maltese people. The programme had been arranged in such a way—one understands the right hon. Gentleman's reason for arranging it in such a way—that the maximum impact would fall in the first two years. But that, of course, is exactly when it would have the maximum unfavourable impact on Malta and be hardest for the people of Malta to digest.
We have not yet been told in the House —we must be told tonight—what is the budgetary saving from these measures, what the taxpayer in this country is saving, so that he can consider whether it is worth while. The Commonwealth Secretary did not tell us this in his Statement last week. He told us that there

would be a reduction of £6,500,000 per annum by 1970 in
British defence expenditure in Malta".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 1274.]
Yes, of course, but that is not the vital figure which we must know.
What we must know—preferably for each year from now to 1971—is the net budgetary saving to this country. This is not to dismiss the importance of expenditure which is in overseas terms, although the importance of that, on the Government's own showing, is rapidly diminishing as they move, so they tell us, into a period not only of equilibrium, but of favourable balance of trade. We have to come back to the basic question which underlies all defence decisions: the way in which the nation's resources shall be directed. That shows up in terms of budgetary expenditure. We must be told the size and the urgency of this budgetary saving which decrees that we shall impose these hardships upon the Maltese people, so that we can decide whether it is impossible to do this in a way which will not provoke such deep and—it will be—lasting antagonism in our relations with Malta.
The appeal which we on this side make to the Government—this is why we are not seeking to divide the House tonight—is to realise the urgency of some new decisions by them, and the profundity of people's feelings. There has been sentiment in this matter. Of course, there is sentiment, where this country and Malta are concerned. There is nothing wrong in that, nothing to be ashamed of. We all have our sentiments—I have my own personal memories—where Malta is concerned. But there is more to it than sentiment, and certainly more than sentimentality. It is a question of the way in which a great nation should comport itself towards a very small nation. We are asking the Government to have the magnanimity, worthy of a great nation, once again to modify their intentions out of consideration for this tiny people who, at this point, are virtually at our mercy.
Above all, we ask that there should be no more threats. There have been too many already. Some were implicit—I was glad that she did not go so far as to spell them out—in the hon. Lady's speech. She seemed to be surprised when


my right hon. Friend said that we had threatened not merely that we would not be able to retain defence installations in the islands, but that we would not be able to continue the aid programme. That is precisely what the Government have threatened. In a statement issued by the Commonwealth Office, her own Department, on 27th January, the Government said:
Their obligation"—
that is, the British Government's obligation—
to provide the balance of this aid during the final seven years of the agreement is dependent on the continued operation of the defence agreement.
This is not the way in which the Government need to talk or to think in these next few critical days. We are called upon not to think rigidly, still less to think like a nation which need not take account of such minor matters. We are called upon so to comport ourselves towards Malta in these days that we shall not be ashamed in the future.

7 48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): This has been a serious and sombre debate and, if nothing else, has revealed the deep and sincere feeling on both sides of the House about the present situation in Malta. I know that the feeling in the House is shared by many people in the country and it is nothing compared with the emotional feeling in Malta itself. I will try to deal with the problem which we face with the seriousness it deserves. I will try to deal with the many points of substance raised by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and by speakers on both sides.
I would make one simple and, I hope, not controversial point. The problem which we face today in Malta presents, in an acute form, the problem which is bound to be raised by any attempt to cut Government expenditure overseas—in particular, to cut Government expenditure on defence. To save money for the British taxpayer—as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out—means taking money away from somebody who is now receiving it. That is just as true of saving in foreign expenditure as of saving expenditure in this country.
With aspect, to some who have spoken, it is totally irrational to ask for cuts in

expenditure and ask that they be made without imposing any disagreeable consequences on anybody at all. That is not possible. The problem is a peculiarly acute one in saving money on the stationing of forces overseas because in this case one is taking away jobs as well as money.
An essential problem of the Maltese situation—which has made it so difficult to handle—is that it concerns people's jobs and not just the amount of economic assistance or aid received by a foreign Government. I must remind the House —hon. Members on both sides, not least the right hon. Member for Wolver-hampton, South-West—that this problem we now face in Malta, will be faced in quite as acute a form, and on a very much larger scale, if we reduce the facilities we now enjoy outside Europe; in Aden, Hong Kong and Singapore. Hon. Members who ask us to reduce those facilities have a duty to tell us how they would propose to reduce them in time, without encountering the sort of difficulties which we face now in Malta.

Mr. Driberg: And Germany?

Mr. Healey: Germany, too. I shall try to deal with all these points.
My second point of a general nature is this. We are sometimes asked why we cannot make savings faster. At Question time I am repeatedly asked this question. Anybody who listened to the accurate and painstaking account given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) of our conversations with the Maltese Government over 12 months about this problem, will know how difficult it is to carry out satisfactory consultations, even over a long period of time, about a problem which concerns the livelihood of thousands of people.
Much has been said—and rightly so in a debate of this sort—about the special moral claim which the people of Malta have on the loyalties of the people of Britain. I certainly accept and recognise that claim. Of course, Her Majesty's Government have recognised it, not least by giving to Malta almost the highest per capita aid any country in the world is receiving from Britain. Malta is receiving £18 per head in aid from Her Majesty's Government, leaving aside all the money that Malta receives, and will


continue to receive, from the stationing of British forces there. That £18 per head in Malta compares with only 6s. 8d. per head in Singapore, which relies no less than Malta on the presence of British forces and which contributes a great deal more than Malta at the present time to the military capability of our defence.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this money was given to Malta to compensate for a previous rundown, between 1961 and 1967, which has already created 8 per cent. unemployment in Malta? Surely he is now creating more unemployment but without making available any more money?

Mr. Healey: I shall be dealing with that and similar questions. The reason why we decided to spread the rundown, which we had planned for two years, over four years, was because we recognised the special claims of the people of Malta for our consideration. I must remind the House that this two years' delay in the completion of the rundown is going to cost the British taxpayer £5 million, or 25 per cent., of the total saving over the four-year period. This is an indication of the importance which we give to the problem. I shall deal in some detail with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on the nature of the various economic savings which Her Majesty's Government expect to get from the rundown.

Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to £5 million. Would he make it clear whether that is an annual figure or a once-for-all one?

Mr. Healey: The £5 million is a loss over the four-year period. It is distributed differently in various years but the loss falls entirely over the last two years, when otherwise the defence rundown would have been completed. I hope that hon. Members will have patience and allow me to get on with my remarks. I will be dealing with the points which have been raised about the economic savings which will be made. If hon. Members are patient, they may see that I will answer the questions they have in mind.
There are two sorts of saving which we expect from this rundown. First,

the budgetary saving to the British taxpayer and, secondly, the relief for our balance of payments, both of which are vitally important. The right hon. Member for Barnet, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, will recognise this. The budgetary saving and the saving on foreign exchange, on balance of payments, are, by a coincidence, both about the same. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will have patience and listen to what I have to say. The budgetary saving will be slightly under £6 million a year, when the rundown is complete. The saving on our balance of payments will be slightly over £6 million a year when the rundown is complete. I will explain exactly how the budgetary saving is made up because many questions were asked about this.
The disbandment of the Royal Malta Artillery will save £1,300,000 on the budget, after allowing for the replacement of Royal Malta Artillery personnel in Germany by members of the Royal Corps of Transport. There will also be a saving, as one hon. Member suggested, of just under £1 million on the return of the two Army battalions and other Army troops to Britain. That is because it is very much cheaper to keep troops in Britain than to keep them abroad, not only because of the transport costs but also because the overheads are very much smaller when troops form part of the very large and well-organised body of servicemen in this country, rather than when they are kept overseas and are the only people there; in other words, when they must provide their own overheads, The total budgetary saving on the withdrawal of Army troops will be £2·2 million.
On the Royal Navy, the saving will be £2 million budgetarily. Again for the same reasons; that it is very much cheaper to keep Naval personnel and their families in the United Kingdom than to keep them overseas. I must admit that one reason for that saving is that it is possible that our Forces in Malta have been employing more local personnel than was strictly necessary, in order to aid the Maltese economy while they were there.
There will be a saving of £1,750,000 on the move of Royal Air Force units because these, or some of them, will, in the main, be disbanded completely, so that the total budgetary saving will be just under


£6 million. It will be £5·95 million. Oddly enough, this comes very close to the figure which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) suggested, when he calculated a saving, on figures with which I could not wholly agree, of £8½ million per annum, minus an amortised portion of redundancy payments and building payments in this country, which he calculated as being about £9 million. All the factors to be taken in to account will be reflected in the Estimates. I assure hon. Members that when this year's Estimates are published, they will see the distribution of savings over the next 12 months listed in detail; there will be the saving on the budget. Saving on the balance of payments, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is quite another matter.

Mr. Powell: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes to the overseas account, could he say whether there are any capital sums which one way or another fall to be taken into account?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. There will be a small capital sum of something over £1 million redundancy payments to locally employed personnel, and then a capital sum to take account of incidental rehousing of forces in this country. I am not in a position to give this in detail—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am prepared to have the accounts scrutinised when they are presented in the normal way to Parliament, but the figures I have given the House are those on which I am prepared to stand.

Mr. John Page: It is not satisfactory to say that we can wait a long time to get these complete figures. The right hon. Gentleman is making a case which has to be seen and made quite clear to all of us today. The figures of the returning families were clearly known to the Government of Malta and to all the Service chiefs in Malta. Surely they ought to be available to him because they set exactly the rate at which families will come home and ought to be rehoused.

Mr. Healey: Yes, but I am prepared in this argument to stand exactly on the assumption which the hon. Member has himself made. Accommodation for families in this country by buying houses or caravans or whatever it is, is a once-

for-all operation and therefore it has to be amortised in some manner, even if it is over four years which is a short period. That would be an annual offset of £2¼ million and would bring out a total budgetary saving slightly higher than the one I have given to the House.
The saving on balance of payments is a saving of expenditure by the forces in Malta and that part of the Royal Malta Artillery serving in Germany at present, which will be replaced by members of the Royal Corps of Transport. The saving here is slightly over £6 million, and this is a figure readily calculated by setting the number of people withdrawn against the present expenditure, which is known.
I do not think any hon. Member has wished to contest this figure but questions have been asked as to whether this is really of assistance to our balance of payments. First, if expenditure by the Government, or as a result of Government action, in the sterling area were not a charge on the balance of payments, we would not face the need to cut £100 million in Government expenditure overseas because the overwhelming bulk of Government expenditure overseas, is in the sterling area. In the defence field, over half is in the sterling area, very much of it outside Europe or "east of Suez" as is sometimes said.
The right hon. Member for Barnett, as an ex-Chancellor, knows perfectly well that British money spent overseas bears directly on the British balance of payments because it creates a claim on British exports. The right hon. Member asked a lot of questions about the sterling area balances. Of course it is true that expenditure in the sterling area does not fall as directly on our gold and foreign currency reserves as expenditure outside the sterling area, because members of the sterling area hold sterling balances, but it does represent a claim on our reserves of gold and foreign exchange and as such, it is inevitably taken into account by our foreign creditors.
That is the reason why the Government decided last year that in the serious economic situation we faced, when there was a serious run on sterling, we must find a way of cutting our expenditure overseas whether in the sterling area or not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to contest the need for this, or claim that expenditure abroad in the


sterling area does not affect our balance of payments because, if he is to claim that, I understand a great deal more about the fate of our finances under the party opposite than I have understood hitherto.

Mr. Maudling: If I may make a serious interjection, the extent to which expenditure in the sterling area affects our balance of payments and the position of sterling is affected by the extent to which that is matched by additional imports from this country and in the case of Malta it would be entirely so matched.

Mr. Healey: This applies equally to expenditure outside the sterling area, and it depends on how much we expert to the country. The unrequited expenditure leads to unrequited exports. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I am slightly surprised.

Sir A. V. Harvey: rose—

Mr. Healey: I have given way a great deal and it is already past 8 o'clock. I have a lot of important questions to answer.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He referred to the Royal Malta Artillery. I cannot dispute his figures, but on the home side with two battalions, one in Germany and one in Malta, what will be the effect bearing in mind that Malta cannot contain the Army itself? Are they to be thrown away like old gloves?

Mr. Healey: They will not be thrown away like old gloves. They will get the redundancy payments which are appropriate, and their numbers must be added to the total of people who become redundant as a result of the cuts. I shall deal with that side of the problem.
I make only one point on the monetary saving, in addition to what I have said, in answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who suggested that Malta was the first country from which we were withdrawing forces under the Defence Review. He asked why we were starting with Malta. But we are not starting with Malta. We shall have 10,000 brought home from the Far East before the first person leaves Malta under the run down decisions, and that run-

down is continuing all the time. Details of it will be given in the statement on the Defence Estimates in a short time.

Mr. Pardoe: What proportion do those 10,000 represent in the total forces in that area and what proportion do the withdrawals from Malta represent in the total forces in the Mediterranean area?

Mr. Healey: I cannot give that in detail without notice.

Mr. Pardoe: I can.

Mr. Healey: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member can do so. He deserves great credit for his researches, but this is totally irrelevant to the point I am making. We are trying to make savings all over the world at present, and we regret to say that our presence in Malta has to make a contribution. I do not think most hon. Members, although one or two did say this, would want us to keep soldiers, sailors and airmen in Malta if we did not need to keep them there and it was causing us to spend money on defence which we did not require to spend for defence reasons. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West spoke for most of the House when he said this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I must say a word or two here about the British military need [Interruption.] I thought that many hon. Members opposite who spoke in the debate seriously wanted information; I hope that they will listen. I want to say a word or two about the nature of our military needs in Malta and how they are affected by the proposals which we have put to the Maltese Government.
Britain's military need for facilities in Malta, as hon. Members know, has been steadily declining ever since the end of the Second World War. At the present time the principal military need is for staging short-range aircraft which cannot make the longer hops on the way to Africa or the Middle and Far East, which the long-range aircraft make. This of course adds considerably to the flexibility of our air power, but the Maltese base is not indispensable even for this purpose. If by any chance we lost the base, although we would have to revise some of the plans we have for carrying out some of our existing military tasks, we


would be able to develop new plans for carrying out those tasks.
There are certain other facilities also which we wish to keep, and which we shall keep, under our proposals—I will mention them in a moment—though they are not so important as is the usefulness of an airfield through which we stage the shorter range aircraft like Argosies, Beverleys and Hastings.
Malta is not important for training, although naturally, since we have been there, we have used it as much as we could. Naval training can be carried out from ships almost anywhere in the world, and we have other facilities in the Mediterranean. The Army in Malta in fact does not train there. It trains in Libya, not in Malta. The Air Force will be staying in Malta to some degree, and we shall retain the staging airfield there.
Our ability to defend Malta is not affected by the reductions we plan. Hon. Members on both sides know that we have commitments and obligations to defend many places where we do not keep any troops permanently. We have very serious responsibilities, for example, for the defence of a whole range of Commonwealth territories in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean arid the Caribbean, which we are perfectly capable of carrying out at need by flying, or sailing, Forces out there when the need arises.
But if we are to fulfil our obligation to defend Malta, what is vital is our ability to reinforce in Malta when needed. This is one of the reasons why we feel it necessary, not only to keep an airfield for peacetime staging, but also to keep another airfield on a care and maintenance basis and to keep certain naval base installations on a care and maintenance basis as well. That means that, when the run-down is complete, besides there being a substantial force of Royal Air Force personnel on the island, there will also be 500 members of the Royal Navy. I say that in answer to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).
I do not believe that anybody argues on military grounds that our ability to fulfil our commitment there is jeopardised by our proposals, though undoubtedly it would be jeopardised if events took such a turn that we were required to leave the island altogether. That is one reason why the Conservative Government made

their Defence Agreement with Malta conditional on the retention of certain facilities on the island.
Under our rundown plan, about 3,000 men of all three Services will stay in Malta until the autumn of 1970, and rather less than half that number thereafter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs has assured the Malta Government that, should the assessed threat to Malta increase in such a way as to throw any doubt whatever on Britain's ability to discharge her obligations under the Defence Agreement, the British Government would unhesitatingly reconsider the rundown and, if necessary, reverse it.
A question was asked about N.A.T.O. The N.A.T.O facilities in Malta are not at risk, so long as the British personnel in the N.A.T.O. installations—because we make a substantital contribution there —are allowed to stay. N.A.T.O. was fully informed of our intentions regarding the rundown in Malta and has raised no objection to it.
If hon. Members are fair, I think that they will recognise that the real concern lies over the economic consequences of the rundown rather than on the implications of the rundown either on our own defence requirements or on our ability to implement our obligation to defend Malta.
I want to try to put this problem into perspective, and I do not want to underestimate its importance. The rundown in Malta has been continuous since 1957. Already 12,000 Maltese have been made redundant by the British rundown, planned by the Tory Government over the last ten years—12,000 over 10 years. The new rundown will involve redundancies of about another 6,000—slightly more—over four years. In other words, the rate will be slightly greater than it has been on average over the last ten years.
If all the people who became redundant failed to find other employment, this could increase unemployment to the—I agree—appalling rate of 14 per cent., but there is no reason whatever to believe that none of those who become redundant will get new employment. On the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Maltese economy is a thriving economy, although it faces an


enormous demographic problem—a birthrate, for example, which adds to the population at the rate of 3 per cent. per year. But the number of jobs in Malta has already doubled in the last six years.
It is very interesting to compare what really happened as a result of the last rundown with the estimates which were made. As I think has been pointed out already in the debate, the joint British/ Maltese assessment in 1962 was that the rundown over the four years terminating in March this year would result in an unemployment rate of between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. The Tory Government were prepared to put forward proposals on the basis of such an assessment. In fact, thank God, it did not have consequences that were anything like as severe. The unemployment rate has never risen above 9 per cent. during this rundown, and at the moment it is running at about 8 per cent.
Again, the assessment was made by a joint working party in 1962 that the G.N.P. as a result of the rundown would fall by 15 per cent. In fact, it has risen by between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. in the intervening years.
I do not want for one moment to suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that Malta will not face a serious problem of unemployment as a result of the rundown. It would be dishonest to claim that. However, I honestly believe that the problem will not be anything like so serious as it has been painted, providing that we all get together to try to do what we can to ease the consequences.
A great deal has been said in the debate by hon. Members on both sides asking Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision on the Defence Review rundown. I do not think, however, that it would make sense to go further on that side of the problem than we have already. We are already in fact charging the British taxpayer £5 million to keep troops in Malta whom we do not need to keep there over the next four years.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in an intensely moving speech, made the accusation that rigidity was my besetting sin. Coming from him, that is

a serious accusation. I have used what influence I can and what thought I can to see ways round this problem. I believe that, if the Maltese Government can be persuaded to accept the proposal which we have made of sending a high-powered industrial team to advise on more rapid development of Malta during the period of rundown, this can have an immense impact on the situation.
I want to make this clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who made a notable speech, as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. There will be no physical withdrawal of troops from Malta under the Government's Defence Review proposals until May this year. I am confident that, if the Malta Government accept our proposal, we shall be able to get a team out there to get a valuable report in time for it to be considered by both Governments before the rundown physically proceeds.
I know that many people will feel that this proposal in itself is not enough to meet the whole of the problem, but I very much hope—I say this seriously to hon. Members on both sides—that those who have influence in Malta will do their best to urge the Malta Government to accept it and, if necessary negotiate with the British Government about some of the details, for, as has been well said on both sides, the situation is very serious.
Perhaps I could now give the House a few details about the impact of the situation on our forces in Malta to date.

Mr. Paget: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, will he go a little bit further? It might be vital. The rundown is not to start until May. Could he say that, until then, reconsideration is always possible and could depend upon what the Commission said? If he could say something like that, it might just give a chance.

Mr. Healey: I am afraid that I cannot in this House now go beyond what I have said, but I hope that those who are familiar with this sort of situation will recognise that there is an opportunity here for second thoughts on both sides. If I may say so to the right hon. Member for Barnet, who made, as


always, an interesting speech, if uncharacteristically immoderate in its opening passages, there is certainly scope for thinking again, but it is not only on one side. I felt that he was less than just to the British Government, in failing to make any hint or suggestion that the Malta Government should reconsider the situation.

Mr. Maudling: In response to the cogent point put by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), the Secretary of State said that he is not in a position to answer and accept it now. Is he prepared to say that he will, with his colleagues, consider whether it could be accepted?

Mr. Paget: It is a critical 24 hours.

Mr. Healey: I understand this very well, and I beg the House to believe that I am doing my utmost to help the situation along in the way we all want to help it along. What I can say is that there are three months between now and the physical commencement of the rundown. I hope that, if the proposal is accepted by the Malta Government, there will be plenty of time for the Commission to make its report and to have the report considered. I cannot at this moment go beyond that.

Mr. Driberg: rose—

Mr. Healey: With respect, no. I want to conclude because I have spoken for far too long, and I am grateful to the House for its indulgence in allowing me to do so.
I conclude with this point, and I beg those hon. Members who have influence in Malta to consider it. So far, the impact of the situation on relations between the Maltese and British Service men in Malta has not been disastrous,

and I am very glad to tell the House that the Malta Government have stressed that their quarrel is with the British Government and not with the people of Britain. There continues to be a sharp distinction between Maltese harassment of our Service organisations under the pretext that we have forfeited our rights under the Defence Agreement and, on the other hand, Maltese treatment of our people as individuals, which continues to be both courteous and friendly.
There has so far been no violence or threat of violence, and I am sure that the Malta Government would wish this to continue. We on our side will do everything possible to prevent a sharpening of the conflict, to prevent a rise in the temperature, because the situation is indeed critical.
I do not want anyone, least of all in Malta, to underestimate the gravity of the situation. If the Malta Government make it impossible for us to stay, we should have to go. In my view, such a situation would be a political tragedy for this country and it would be a military inconvenience. But for the people of Malta it would be a total catastrophe.

Mr. Driberg: May I put this question to my right hon. Friend before he concludes? I was very glad to hear him say that there is room for second thoughts on both sides. Does he mean that those second thoughts could cover some possible rephasing of the operation within the four years?

Mr. Healey: I can give no such undertaking at this moment.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WEST INDIES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair.]

Clause 1.—(STATUS OF ASSOCIATION WITH UNITED KINGDOM.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I wish to put to the hon. Lady Minister of State a question about the operation of the appointed day. On Second Reading —her words appear in c. 344 of HANSARD —she announced the appointed day in respect of five of the six territories, and in her statement this afternoon she announced the appointed day for St. Vincent as 1st June this year. In answer to a question from me, she said that this would be so whether or not the present electoral difficulties have been resolved.
The Committee will agree that in these circumstances the need to resolve the present difficulties is urgent. I imagine that it is possible that they could drag on for many months, and it seems to me that there would be an awkward situation if the difficulties were not resolved before, or at least not long before, the holding of the election which the hon. Lady announced would take place before the end of 1968. We should then have in St. Vincent, as I understand it, a Government which for all its life from 1st June, 1967 would be questioned by a large proportion of the population of the island. Undoubtedly, therefore, the sooner these difficulties are resolved the better.
Will the hon. Lady tell us a little more about what might be possible, either before or after the appointed day for St. Vincent, to resolve the difficulties which still exist? Will she give her opinion on the specific suggestion for the setting up of a special court staffed by judges specially chosen for the purpose of resolving the difficulties and electoral petitions as swiftly as possible'? Unless these difficulties are speedily resolved, the situation in St. Vincent, to the improvement of which she has made a notable contribution by her statement today and the

agreement she has been able to achieve, will suffer considerably.

Mr. Donald Chapman: The Clause includes the Island of Grenada. Can my hon. Friend say something about what is happening there? I have received a telegram from the leader of the opposition in Grenada, Mr. Gairy, to say that all the Grenada opposition members have resigned from the legislature in protest against having the new constitution without general elections. Will it not be impossible to enforce the Clause, and indeed to bring Grenada into a position of associated state under the Clause, if the Legislature is in disarray through withdrawal, by formal resignation, apparently—I do not know whether it is the case, but am merely asking—of all the members of the Opposition? In those circumstances, does my hon. Friend contemplate any delay in the case of Grenada. Does she contemplate further discussions about the situation that has arisen there in recent days?
Secondly, there is the question of St. Vincent, and I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said a word about it. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State made her announcement this afternoon, I said that I viewed it with dismay. The reason is that my hon. Friend was saying in effect that the present situation must continue for something like 18 months, with the courts going through the election petitions, and with a general election on the basis of the new constituencies drawn up by the boundary commissioner some time at the end of 1968.
8.30 p.m.
That means that unless the election petitions are somehow disposed of very quickly, Mr. Joshua remains in power there for another 18 months. That is monstrous in view of the clear fact that the Opposition really won the general election with 500 more votes than the other people in a 30,000 electorate. It would be much better to take the present proposal for four extra seats—the Constitution arrangements include provision for four extra seats to be put into the Legislature—and have immediate elections for them on an island-wide, winner-take-all basis.
If there were an election in the island for those four seats the winner would take them and the situation would be resolved. That is why I object to leaving the situation indeterminate. Regardless of the agreement signed between the two parties, there will be unrest, division, bitter argument and months of in St. Vincent because of the delay in bringing a quick solution to all the troubles.
I am very disappointed with my hon. Friend's announcement. Perhaps she will answer the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman about the position, namely, whether there is any hope of helping to clear up the situation by speeding the judicial hearings of the election petitions. That might reduce the bitterness and perhaps test public opinion, even though not by elections, a little sooner, which would be a good thing.
At this hour, we should proceed as quickly as possible, and I say no more.

Mr. James Johnson: I heard the impassioned plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and I wish to supplement it by saying that I have also had a cable from the Leader of the Opposition in Grenada. I conveyed it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I hope that she intends to say a few words about the matter. She will doubtless have thought about it, and I am certain that there is a perfectly satisfactory answer to our complaints.
It is fatal in a colony to have a situation when it is given, not independence, but more autonomy, and the ruling party stays in power without a test at the ballot box of whether it is fit to do so. That is quite wrong. For example, in Barbados last December there had not been elections before a certain gentleman was allowed to stay in power. It is very important in all these colonial societies to test the people's will before handing over even half a loaf, never mind the full loaf of independence.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart): I wish to deal first with the point raised about St. Vincent by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) about the possibility of setting up a special court so that the elections could be more speedily disposed of. I assure them that that was

obviously a very attractive idea, and we spent some time looking into it and discussing it with both delegations. Had it been possible, had it seemed at the end of the day to be wise, one could have disposed of the petitions more quickly and then, whatever the result, gone ahead with the constitution and associated status. Our own view on balance, having consulted the lawyers, was that that would be unwise.
This is because, however tempting it might seem, it would represent an interference in the normal judicial processes in St. Vincent. Apart from interfering with judicial processes, it would cast some element of doubt, which we would not wish to cast, upon the capabilities of the judges in the courts there. On reflection, both sides, with whom we have frankly discussed this idea, took the same view, that this would represent an interference with the judiciary and ought not to be permitted.
On the general point about the settlement reached and the agreed solution, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield would have preferred, we are possibly differing in our attitude about what is the essential point to have secured in this agreement. He would say, as Mr. Cato says, that we should have island-wide elections, and on the basis of that, the winner would take all. This is what it would amount to, and if that had been the solution I would not have achieved a neutral Boundary Commission and a neutral definition of the four seats.
I regard this as one of the most important points in this obviously very marginal political situation. When this was agreed to by both sides, in the spring, there was a much less marginal political situation. Mr. Cato told me that his party fought its first election in 1956 and failed to win a seat. In the next election it won one or two, and in the elections preceding those last August, it won three seats, so that the position was 6-3. In that situation no one was fully aware of the difficulties which might emerge as a result of both sides agreeing to this particular element. It becomes very different when one has a margin of 5-4 in one election which could be in favour of another party at another election.
What matters is providing a means of securing a fair basis upon which the country can operate, so that there can be no


accusations made in future about how boundaries have been drawn up, how a constituency was created, and how the Government got into power. This was a very fair solution. It is preferable to that suggested by the hon. Member for Northfield. I prefer to have a clean-cut solution, offering a fair and correct basis for the future, than follow a "gambler take all" policy. There has been a straight-down-the-middle compromise. Mr. Cato would prefer to postpone associated status until much nearer the date of another election. Mr. Joshua wanted associated status before then. We have a compromise between pushing forward the date of associated status and bringing forward the date of the next election. Both sides would obviously prefer their original idea, but this is a fair compromise.
No doubt, I shall continue to disagree with the gambling philosophy of my hon. Friend, but I am satisfied that this is the right thing to do. I am glad that both sides agreed to it. It will provide the right basis for the future, although there will be difficulties over the next few months. With this agreement behind them, and with the knowledge that there is no longer uncertainty about when they will have associated status and how the island is to proceed, I hope that both sides will make every effort in their power to speed up their applications for a hearing on one matter or another in the courts. Certainly we have the constitutional basis. I took very much into account the fact that an agreed solution was, on the whole, less likely to result in disturbance of any severe degree in St. Vincent than would have been the case with a non-agreed, imposed solution which would have immensely angered both sides or one side.
I wish to say a few words about Grenada. There have been Opposition resignations. Our information is that, as a result, the Legislature is by no means in disarray—it is continuing to function—and that the procedure to be followed in relation to statehood is not affected because this is strictly an internal matter. It is as though some hon. Members opposite were to resign their seats. There would then be a number of pending by-elections. They might, in a flurry of

public concern, succeed in forcing the Government to resign and hold a general election. On the other hand, the Government might stick it out and manage to get away with the by-elections. It is very much a matter of the internal politics of Grenada.

Mr. Chapman: My evidence is not that some Opposition members resigned but that they all resigned. Does not this mean, not merely a few Opposition members resigning their seats, but the breakdown of the parliamentary system?

Mrs. Hart: I did not mean to imply that not all the members of the Opposition had resigned. Nevertheless, it is an internal political situation. The Constitution provides for dealing with it either by holding by-elections or by the Government resigning and calling a general election. This is a decision of the Government. It is an internal political decision.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield is a colonialist at heart in many ways and does not like to recognise situations in which we cannot challenge and influence the internal position because the Constitution—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend will admit that he would like to be able to intervene more often that we are able to do by our constitutional relationships.
Mr. Gairy fully agreed to the Constitution which provides for the advance to associated status. This reinforces my point that this is very much an internal situation and not one which calls into question any of the provisions in the White Paper or the move towards associated status.

Mr. James Johnson: Would my hon. Friend say when the next elections would have been due without the change which is proposed now?

Mrs. Hart: January, 1968.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(PROVISION OF NEW CONSTITUTIONS FOR ASSOCIATED STATES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wood: This is the first Clause which mentions an Order in Council. I am in rather a muddle about the procedures which follow these Orders in Council. Clause 17 explains the procedure in relation to Orders in Council made under certain Clauses of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
My confusion is, perhaps, a little less culpable because I understand that it was shared by my very well-informed hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dame Joan Vickers), who raised this matter on Second Reading. My hon. Friend drew attention to the later Clause which pointed out a certain procedure for orders under Clauses 13 and 14. My hon. Friend was anxious that the procedures for these orders should be brought into line with that which governs orders under Clause 7.
I understand that the Minister of State has let my hon. Friend have certain views to suggest that her interpretation of the position was incorrect. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady would be kind enough not only to explain the position concerning the point raised by my hon. Friend on Second Reading, but to take this opportunity of clarifying this, to me, complicated matter of the different procedures relating to the different Orders in Council.
I hope that I have said enough merely to put my confusion into interrogative form. I would be grateful for any clarity that the Minister of State can shine on the situation.

Mrs. Hart: I will do what I can to throw light on the position for the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). I will deal first with Clause 5 and then the matter raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). In Clause 5 we are dealing with procedure affecting Orders in Council. Neither affirmative nor negative procedure is involved. The grant of these constitutions is very similar to the grant of an independence constitution.
The question whether an Order in Council would be subject to affirmative or negative procedure is largely determined by whether the Order in Council in question will for the most part be confined to making changes in the law operating in this country. For instance, as I have explained to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport by letter, an order might

be made if a State was establishing its own citizenship on termination of the association.
In those circumstances, there would be consequential effects on the British Nationality Acts. We should have to deprive some of the people who acquire citizenship of the territory of citizenship of the United Kingdom. In other words, to meet the legislative requirements of the territory we would have to change the legislation here. When that happened, it would be made under one of the Clauses that provide for annulment. Since it would be our legislation which was in question, it would be right that Parliament should have the opportunity, if it so wished, to discuss it and pray against it. This is not the case if an Order in Council deals entirely with something which is done at the request and with the consent of an associated State and does not concern British legislation. I hope that this clarifies the situation to some extent for the right hon. Gentleman.
Clause 17, on which the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport raised her query, deals with Parliamentary control over Orders in Council. It requires that Orders in Council made on the ending of association of a territory shall be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. It requires that Orders in Council which modify Acts of Parliament here and other instruments in the event of changes in the constitutional status of a territory should be subject to annulment here. But those Orders which do not come under either of those two categories and relate to matters concerning only the territory and not our legislation would simply be made and not be subject to Parliamentary discussion, debate or annulment.
The essential point is that the Queen, as Head of the Commonwealth, in an Order in Council is helping with the legislation of one of the Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Wood: I thank the hon. Lady for that illuminating reply. I fancy that I shall find it even more illuminating when I read it in HANSARD tomorrow.
I have a quite separate point which I left until later because I did not want to muddle it with the one about Orders in Council. It relates specifically to the Clause dealing with the provision of a


constitution. We have just been discussing the affairs of St. Vincent, and I presume that the constitution will be agreed with St. Vincent on or just before the appointed day of this year. I do not know whether that is a correct assumption.

Mrs. Hart: If I may assist the right hon. Gentleman, the position is that the agreement made yesterday is the new Constitutional Agreement. The old Constitution agreed last spring stands, with the modifications that were included in yesterday's agreement. That is all signed and settled.

Mr. Wood: The Constitution, as the White Paper foreshadowed, includes already the terms of setting up a Boundaries Commission. I do not know whether that is modified by the statement which the hon. Lady made about the operation of the Boundaries Commission in working between now and the elections to change the roll and draw the boundaries of the 13 seats. In any event, no doubt it is included in the Constitution. I wonder if the hon. Lady can give me her views on the interesting and significant distinctions which are made between the Boundaries Commission proposed for Dominica and that proposed for St. Vincent in the Report on the Windward Islands. On page 25 of that Report relating to Dominica, paragraph 17 says:
The Constitution will provide for a Boundaries Commission, which will consist of the Speaker of the House of Assembly as Chairman. two members of the House of Assembly appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Premier, and two members of the House appointed by the Governor either on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition or, if there is no Opposition, by the Governor in his discretion.
That is apparently the proposal for Dominica.
In the case of St. Vincent, it is put differently and more simply. It says:
… a Constituency Boundaries Commission, consisting of a Chairman and not less than two nor more than four other members, to be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Premier.
I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could explain why these two proposals are different, if they are to be maintained in the effective Constitutions. On the face of it, particularly in the light of the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for

Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), it is essential that the proposals for the Boundaries Commission should not only be absolutely fair but should be accepted as fair in these islands.
On the face of it, again, the proposals for Dominica's Boundaries Commission seem the fairer of the two. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could enlighten us as to why different procedures for the setting-up of the Boundaries Commissions were adopted.

Mrs. Hart: As I understand it, and my right hon. Friend was there, it was simply because the constitutional conferences had the opportunity to discuss one, two or even three possible ways of doing many things including dealing with the Constituency Boundaries Commissions. Each one was felt by my office to be a perfectly fair and sound way of doing it. The fact that at one constitutional conference the delegates preferred one way of doing it, and at another constitutional conference the delegates preferred another way of doing it, accounts for the difference between the two. It does not necessarily cast any reflection on either one constitution or the other, although, as I said, because of the political situation in St. Vincent, I am glad that we have changed the transitional provisions and provided for an amendment to what is to occur in St. Vincent.

Mr. Chapman: Are they only transitional in the case of St. Vincent? On the face of it, the permanent proposals in the White Paper will mean that the Government will control the membership of the Boundary Commission.

Mrs. Hart: No. They are amendments to the Constitution which will be entrenched, and amendments to the transitional provisions will cover the four extra seats to be created, and the Boundary Commission is one of the more substantial provisions of the Constitution. I think that hon. Members will find this easier to understand when they have read the copy of the agreement which has been placed in the Library, which sets all this out in detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(POWER OF HER MAJESTY TO MAKE LAWS FOR ASSOCIATED STATES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Wood: During the Second Reading debate I raised a point with the hon. Lady about the connection between paragraph 18 of the Windward Islands Report and the Bill. The Report said:
It would not be possible, by means of an Act of Parliament or Order in Council having effect by virtue of the exception,"—
which I explained on that occasion,
to amend, suspend or revoke the constitution of the associated State.
Subsection (2) of this Clause contains the words:
including … provision derogating from the provisions of the constitution of that state relating to fundamental rights and freedoms.
When the hon. Lady replied she said:
It is a fact that nothing in the Bill in terms reflects the statement in paragraph 18 of the Windward Report, but it will be included in the agreement with Antigua, and with any other State if that should be its wish, so this matter is not covered by the Bill, but is covered in the agreement"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 382.]
I did not on that occasion interrupt the hon. Lady with a number of Committee points, but she seems to have been guilty of an understatement by saying that
nothing in the Bill in terms reflects the statement in paragraph 18",
because my reading of it is that the Bill almost flatly contradicts the statement in paragraph 18. I would, therefore, be grateful if the hon. Lady would, first, clear up this apparent contradiction, and, secondly, explain what she means by this agreement. Is this agreement embodied in the Constitution for each of the territories?

Mrs. Hart: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last question is "No". It is the heads of agreement on defence and external affairs which we are considering here, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I said on Tuesday night was right. It is a fact that although White Papers do not refer to the fact that we should he able to derogate from the fundamental rights and freedoms when legislating for defence purposes, we agreed that they would require the power

to derogate in their own emergency provisions, and there is no reason why they should not wish us to be in a similar position.
The real difficulty is that the agreement which was reached, and covered general matters, has a binding effect on some matters which arise in relation to each constitution and in relation to each territory. But in the case of a matter which was agreed and in respect of which the agreement was signed, it was felt that unless a specific constitutional and legal point was involved it was not necessary to write it into the Bill. We do not feel that there is the slightest danger of anything going wrong in this connection simply because there are no expressed terms in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(POWER TO UNITE, DIVIDE OR ALTER TERRITORIES OF ASSOCIATED STATES.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out subsection (2).
In practice, the Clause will empower the making of any future federation of the islands. That is its main impact. My hon. Friend is quite wrong in thinking, either by my earlier remarks or by this Amendment, that I am a colonialist. When she has been out to the West Indies —and I am delighted to know that she may be going out there—she will realise how a person may want to take a very active part in helping those islands even on matters that he might consider to be their internal affairs, simply because they are so small, so scattered, and so desperate for our help. They are not like other territories which are clamouring for independence; they are terrified of being left alone. We must not be worried about exercising a little paternalism, if I may call it that rather than colonialism.
I am puzzled about the meaning of subsection (2,b) which seems to provide that no Order in Council designed to bring about a federation shall be made


so as to affect one of the islands or any of the islands plus some other part of the Caribbean for which we could not in any case be making Orders in Council. Let me put it in another way. It seems to provide that no Order to make a federation can be made so as to include a part of the Caribbean for which we would not have had power to make an Order in Council anyway.
That is how I understand the paragraph to read. If that is so it will be a terrific disadvantage, which will operate against one of the most obvious possibilities for future federation. Such a future federation might well come about in association with Trinidad, Jamaica or Barbados, all of which are now independent States. It is important that we should leave ourselves with the option to make an Order in Council which could link these islands with any or all of the newly independent states in the Caribbean.
I do not want to see a provision which will inhibit that process in the future. We are very near such a federation in one case. There has been a great deal of talk about a real link between Grenada and Trinidad. If this should be demanded by the people of Grenada in due course I want the possibility to be wide open for an Order in Council to be made to facilitate it.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can make some comments about the way in which Her Majesty's Government intend to foster the idea of federation—to use their powers under the Clause. We must not let this matter drop just because recent attempts at federation have failed. The Tripartite Economic Survey, to which I have already referred, goes into enormous detail about the number of services which need to be run on a federated basis. The list is quite frightening. It includes industrial development, tourist development, market development within and outside the islands, fishery development, forestry and mineral development, and agricultural development and research—half-a-dozen enormous subjects to start with. These services can be fostered properly only on an inter-island co-operative basis of a substantial scale.
It is important for my hon. Friend to say that Her Majesty's Government will continually keep the idea of federation and co-operation, on these and other

issues, right at the top of the agenda in their contacts and influence in the newly independent islands.
Finally, I hope that the scheme which I have pressed for a long time will be accepted. I refer to the idea of having a regional commissioner as representative of Her Majesty's Government, and not separate Governors for each island, independent from each other and interested only in their own island. I would prefer a regional commissioner, whose permanent job would be to look for the topics, the issues, and the services on which cooperation and joint service could be planned and fostered. One of the ways in which the future of these islands can be assured is by the continuing pressure and encouragement of Her Majesty's Government.

Mrs. Hart: I gather from what my hon. Friend has said that he has no intention of pressing his Amendment, but has moved it on an exploratory basis.
The best way in which I can deal with his query is to explain to him what the Clause does or does not do.
Subsection (1) enables an Order in Council to provide for the possible changes which might be required in units of Government, including changes in which both an associated state and another British dependent territory in the area is involved. It provides for the necessary steps to be taken if one associated State and another British dependent territory wish to become associated together or federated.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that an associated state must ask for and agree to any Order in Council which affects it. It also makes clear that, regarding other dependent territories, an Order in Council which does what subsection (1) provides cannot be made unless there is power to do so independently of the Bill.
Subsection (3) deals with new constitutions of Government, which does not touch on my hon. Friend's point. Under subsection (4), any territory which results from the powers that are given under subsection (1) being exercised, can be deemed to be included among the territories to which Clause 1 of the Act applies—that is to say, treated as an associated State for the purposes of the Bill.
I can assure the hon. Member that what we have done here is to make it easier, and certainly not more difficult, for an associated State, so to amend its constitution that it is able to federate with an independent Commonwealth country. It is much easier, and I can assure the hon. Member that to allow his Amendment to be accepted would be the last thing that he would want.
My hon. Friend asks about our view of federation but he will recall what the former Secretary of State for the Colonies said on this subject. I do not want to go into the question of federation now, for I have not seen things for myself in the Caribbean. Again, on the question of the appointment of a Regional Commissioner, my hon. Friend must allow me to study the matter for myself, having listened carefully to what he has had to say not only tonight but on other occasions. I am inclined to think that what he has to say contains a great deal of substance but I know that he will be glad to allow me time to reach my own conclusion in my own way.

Mr. Chapman: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, although I still do not understand subsection (4), and accepting her assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(GRANTS FOR BENEFIT OF
ASSOCIATED STATES.)

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, at end to insert:
'and any federation of the states made under section 9 of this Act '.
Subsection (1) relates to the powers of the Government to provide financial help for these new associated States under the Overseas Aid Act, 1966. The effect of my Amendment would be to make it clear that that power to make grants under the Act would continue if the powers of Clause 9 were used to federate any of these States. It may be said that probably they would be able to go on having grants after federation because they would still be the associated States set out in the Bill. On the other hand, we want to be

sure that the federal Government, if it came about—it is not mentioned in the Bill so far—would be able to receive the grants under the Act. So far as I can see, that could not be so without my Amendment.

Mrs. Hart: I agree that it is necessary that, what can be done for an associated State under Clause 16, should be possible for a federation of those States. But while I agree with my hon. Friend that this is highly desirable, the Amendment is unnecessary. I direct his attention again to the difficult Clause 9(4). He will find there the provision that Clause 16(1) could be applied to a federation of associated States. His objective is already met in the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chapman: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, to leave out subsection (3).
Subsection (3) is puzzling. In effect, it says that, after the appointed day, these new associated territories shall cease to receive any grants made under Section 8 of the West Indies Act, 1962. The effect is to withdraw grants which would have been available under that Act. I looked up the Act and am rather puzzled as to why the Government wish to disembarrass themselves of the powers in Section 8. They are very useful powers to give money. Section 8 says that the Secretary of State may
from time to time make, to the Government of any colony"—
this would include these islands—
to which section five of this Act applies, being a Government whose resources are, in his opinion, insufficient to enable it to defray its administrative expenses, grants of such amounts as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine.
There are two other subsections about federation and so on. This is a very handy power.
Why then does my hon. Friend wish to get rid of it? What sort of grant which would have been made under this Clause will now not be made to these associated States? What money have they been receiving under this Section which they now will not receive? If the effect of the subsection is to reduce the amount


which we give these islands, I shall hotly oppose it. As an hon. Member opposite said on Second Reading, we are already making very small grants to these islands compared to what is being given to Guadaloupe and Martinique.
9.15 p.m.
The figures will stagger my hon. Friend. One can see Guadaloupe and Martinique from Dominica which shows how near it is and how embarrassing to have money poured into these other islands when Dominica is so poor. In Guadaloupe and Martinique, in 1963, the grant was £75 per head, compared with less than £10 per head in Dominica and the other Windward Islands. There is a great deal to worry about in the way in which money is to be provided and the liberality of Acts of Parliament under which we give grants to these islands.
At the dinner of the British Caribbean Association last Saturday, the Prime Minister, as guest of honour, gave his personal blessing to the idea of a "little Colombo Plan" for these islands. This is the idea fostered by the tri-partite survey, of getting the United States and Canada, with Great Britain, to make grants to these islands. It needs about £30 million or £40 million to start the process, but if the Government have not the power under subsection (3) but only under the Overseas Aid Act of 1966, how will we provide the money which I hope we will find—£10 million—to start this thing?
We must find it somewhere and I am worried that, if my hon. Friend gets rid of the powers of the 1962 Act, there will be no legislation under which we can make these initial substantial grants which will be needed to make these associated States viable. Is this figure of £32 million, the starting figure, accepted by the Government as necessary? Does my hon. Friend hope to announce the way in which Canada and the United States will be associated with us in helping to provide it?

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: I add my plea to that made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Those of us who have visited these islands and know them well—and I might mention that I presented a report to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor

after I had been there—appreciate that much more could be done, remembering the great historical tradition of the islands. They took part in battles between the French and the British and I believe that they could be developed, if a little more money was spent, into great tourist attractions, particularly for visitors from the United States and Canada. The islands have great historical associations and these could be developed to great advantage.
I recall seeing an American ship arriving at St. Lucia. The tourists merely left the ship and went to the leading hotel for lunch—and that was that. Nothing was laid on to make the place a tourist attraction. No trips were provided to enable them to see St. Lucia. If money were spent and something like the English Harbour being developed in Antigua was provided there, much could be done to build up the tourist trade.

Mrs. Hart: I congratulate hon. Members on having widened the scope of the debate on a somewhat narrow Amendment, yet at the same time having remained in order. Although this has been a clever exercise on their part, I am afraid that I cannot follow them into a wide discussion of the degree of assistance which we, compared with, say, France, have given to countries in the Caribbean or into a whole range of matters which are strictly for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, who is keenly interested in these issues.
I can best answer the points made on the Amendment by simply saying that it touches on one of those points of government where one is anxious that the Minister who gets the money to spend is the Minister responsible for spending it. We are merely translating the donor as from the Secretary of State to the Minister of Overseas Development. The amounts of money will depend on a number of factors; and I was delighted to hear about my right hon. Friend's remarks on Saturday evening. The only point here is that it is no longer appropriate that the grants should be given by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) and, by removing the power to give grants under the West Indies Act, 1962, we are enabling the Minister of Overseas Development to give the associated States all the assistance that may be made available under the Act for


developing the State, for maintaining its economy and for making grants in aid of administration. There is no variation at all in the amount or character of the aid which the Government would provide. It is merely the formal agent of that aid who differs as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend saying that this subsection will not take away the possibility of any of the grants which are now being made from being made in future?

Mrs. Hart: In terms of a grant being made to Dominica or St. Vincent, this will have no relevance to what they get, the purposes for which they use it or the amounts we give in relation to their needs and economic situation generally. Instead of the Secretary of State giving the grant under the 1962 Act, it will be the Minister of Overseas Development who will give them under this Measure.

Mr. Chapman: I am not entirely reassured by my hon. Friend's remarks, but, in the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2.—(PROCEDURE FOR
TERMINATING STATUS OF ASSOCIATION.)

Mrs. Hart: I beg to move, in page 15, line 39, to leave out from 'Bill' to the second 'the' in line 40 and to insert:
'having been passed by the lower House, is passed by the upper House in the same Session either without amendment or with amendments which are agreed to by the lower House in accordance with the last preceding sub-paragraph'.
I think I need not explain this matter fully to the House but I will do so if I am asked to do so. Schedule 2 lays down the procedure which the legislature of an associated State has to observe in enacting a law, under Clause 10(1) to terminate the association and make the State independent of the United Kingdom. The Amendment relates to paragraph 3 of the Schedule and involves no

new matter of policy. The purpose is to clarify the wording of the paragraph so that if a State does invoke Clause 10 there can be no possible doubt as to whether it has gone through the proper legislative procedure to make itself independent of this country. We thought that this further clarification would improve the Bill.

Mr. Wood: The only question I ask is for clarification of the procedures. Are the procedures understood and accepted by all the territories concerned?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, I completely confirm that that is the case. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to give a fuller explanation I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. Wood: No, I do not think that is necessary.

Mrs. Hart: That apparently satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 13, at end insert:
(8) Sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to the passage of the Bill in the second of those Sessions as it has effect in relation to the passage of the Bill in the Session in which it is first introduced.

In line 17, leave out 'the last preceding sub-paragraph' and insert:
'sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph'.—[Mrs. Hart.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.—[Mrs. Hart.]

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Chapman: Rather than allow the Bill to go through entirely without a final word as I suspect would otherwise happen, I wish to say one or two things. I think the House would like to thank my hon. Friend for the work she has done on this Bill this week. This has been a particularly heavy week for her. She has had all the negotiations with St. Vincent to deal with, and I know that they have not been easy. Indeed, I have been one


of the people who have made them difficult for her. In addition, she has had the various stages of this Bill and the Malta debate as well. I am sure the House would wish to thank her for her patience and to congratulate her on her physical endurance. I am particularly grateful to her because, although I have crossed swords with her on the Bill, she has remained much more courteous than I have and I have learned some lessons about behaviour as well as about endurance.
The good thing about this Bill, apart from the move to independence which it incorporates, is the assurances we have extracted—that is the wrong word for they have been freely given—about the continuing interest by Her Majesty's Government in these associated territories despite the degree of independence which is entailed under the terms of the Bill. This is important. I made a long speech about it on Second Reading and I will not bore the House by making it again. If, after the Bill, despite independence these islands—far off, very lonely, very separated, very conscious of their remoteness—feel that independence also carries with it a little of the paternalism with which my hon. Friend reproaches me, I shall be delighted, because Her Majesty's Government's initiative and economic protection as well as physical protection are needed.
They look to us for leadership, for ideas, and for assistance of all kinds in a world which is very difficult indeed for little islands with a population of no more than 60,000 each. These are not people to launch alone on the world stage today. We are doing it in a remarkable way in the Bill, I freely confess. The one hope I have of success is the sort of assurances I have sought and received from my hon. Friend that in this new, uncharted sea of independence nevertheless these islands can be absolutely assured of Her Majesty's continuing affection as well as simple physical protection. That is very important indeed today.
As the House knows, I love these islands very dearly. I would not be alone in saying that I would love to live there most of the year. Who would not, with our climate and with their climate and topography? My hon. Friend is going

out there very soon. I hope that she will enjoy her visit. I hope that she will return as enthusiastic as many of us are about this part of the world and as committed as many of us are to seeing them through a very difficult future.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Wood: In addition to supporting what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has delightfully said about the endurance and courtesy of the hon. Lady the Minister of State throughout the passage of the Bill, I should like to share what he said about his desire, if he could, to live in that part of the world. Not only has it the charms he mentioned. As far as I know, they do not have morning sittings there.
In spite of any reservations that the hon. Gentleman or I expressed during earlier stages of the Bill about the future, we are all united in hoping that this new move forward will be a great success. As I said on Second Reading, I hope very much indeed that it will provide a basis for a new beginning to the kind of hopeful signs of federations, and groups of that sort, which we saw developing a decade ago but which so disappointingly came to a temporary end in 1962. I hope very much that this will be a great success; I hope that we shall go on giving the kind of support that the hon. Gentleman suggested; and I hope that this new form of association between us will be very fruitful.

9.33 p.m.

Sir H. Harrison: I add my tribute from the back benches on this side of the House. Far be it from me to cross swords with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), but the island that I particularly know of—St. Lucia—would not like to be thought to be in the 60,000 category. Its population is much nearer 100,000, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind my making that slight correction.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said, we wish the Bill well. I am sure that this sort of association is the type of process we should like for these small islands, which are, in a way, lonely. If they want their self-government, they look to us for a certain amount of protection and help. I only hope that that very great man, Sir Garnett Gordon, who when he was High


Commissioner here for the Federation had something like this very much in mind, will feel that the Bill meets some of the aspirations, not only of his own island, but also of the other islands out there.
What some people in this country do not realise is that although these territories are known as the West Indies, they are a very long way from centres like the Bahamas and Jamaica. They are very much on their own. But they have a great sense of loyalty and attachment to this country, although they want their self-government. I said earlier that, with the expenditure of very little money, a great deal more could be done to help them o earn money themselves by developing their tourist trade. I hope that this will be done, and I wish them well under the Bill.

9.35 p.m.

Mrs. Hart: I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their kind remarks about me, but I wish to add a word about the background to the Bill. For a considerable part of this evening, we have had with us my right hon. Friend the last Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whose work we owe a great deal in the preparation of the Bill and the negotiations which led up to associated status. Before his work, of course, there was that of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, and before that the work of my

right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Those Ministers brought about, as it were, the genesis of the Bill, and it has been my duty merely to pilot through the House a Measure which had had an enormous amount of thought and discussion devoted to it before I arrived at the Commonwealth Office.
The Bill has had very many good wishes, and good wishes for the Bill, of course, are good wishes for the associated States in the West Indies. I feel that we may now, without danger of being accused of colonialism or neo-colonialism in the Committee of Twenty-four, quietly allow ourselves the small luxury of a degree of paternalism, a degree of involvement, inasmuch as our relationship carries with a great continuing interest and concern for these territories, to which we are happy to give self-government but with which we wish always to retain our links.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Ten o'clock.